PDA

View Full Version : Hal Lewis resigns APS. Global Warmings a Scam.



Sev
10-10-2010, 06:06 PM
Rut Row Shaggy!!!!!!

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society
Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
E-mail Print PDF

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

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. <span style="color: #000099">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. </span>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<span style='font-size: 14pt'>

<span style="color: #CC0000">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)</span></span>

jimmyg
10-10-2010, 07:56 PM
I must admit that I haven't researched this further, but, on it's face this is really disturbing, not surprising, but disturbing. It appears that the organized corruption at the highest political levels of the world has penetrated the sciences.

J

LWW
10-10-2010, 09:53 PM
The science deniers will be unmoved and are already awaiting, on bended knee, for the next spoonful of "TRUTH" to be delivered on the topic.

LWW

Qtec
10-11-2010, 04:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Climategate is a media ruse based on sensationalism, not investigative journalism.</span> When the climategate story broke, a number of people welcomed the news and eagerly offered their emotional support. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Now that the scientists involved <u>were vindicated by three investigations,</u> one would expect to see retractions or at least addendums to the coverage. Unfortunately this is not the case.</span>

Climategate refers the scandal that began when hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails. Climate change skeptics immediately claimed the e-mails brought into question the veracity of climate change science.

Popular media jumped aboard the bandwagon and climate change conspiracy theories abounded. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>There were a host of outlandish claims like suggestions that that global warming is a ‘hoax’ and climategate is the ‘final nail in the coffin’ </span>of anthropogenic climate change. Other headlines did not mask their hostility, an example of which reads, “Climategate Conspiracy: Massive Coverup By UN’s IPCC Scumbags”.

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Three separate inquiries have decisively proved these allegations to be false. </span>The first inquiry, conducted by MPs, cleared the UEA scientists of wrong-doing. So did the second inquiry, from Lord Oxburgh in conjunction with the Royal Society.

The July 5, 2010 Independent Climate Change Email Review from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), suggested greater openness, but it cleared the scientists of wrongdoing and it further indicated that the science of climate change is sound. “We find that their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” said Muir Russell, who headed the inquiry.

“The review is explicit in its finding that the key conclusions of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report are accurate, correct and supported entirely by the leading science in the field,” said Martin Parry, Co-Chair of AR4 Working Group II. He went on to say that, “none were found to contain any significant errors”. The Independent Climate Change Email Review clearly states that projections for the deleterious effects of climate change remain unchanged, “The Working Group II contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report shows ample observational evidence of regional climate-change impacts, which have been projected to pose substantial risks to most parts of the world, under increasing temperatures.”</div></div>
link (http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2010/07/14/irresponsible-media-continues-to-fuel-climategate-controversy/)

So, after 3 different investigations this guy,[ how old is he?......." When I first joined the American Physical Society <u>sixty-seven years ago</u>" ], shows that he is not up to date with the facts.

Great source.

Q

sack316
10-11-2010, 05:09 AM
[quote=Qtec]
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'><s>Climategate</s> Global Warming is a media ruse based on sensationalism, not investigative journalism.</span>
Q </div></div>

Fixed /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

cushioncrawler
10-11-2010, 05:23 AM
If i told Hal that a seven foot cuban poofta woz kreeeping up behind him and woz going to stick hiz 8 inch schlonck up Hal's arse, i think Hal would take the safe option.
But, with global warming, Hal wont even look behind him.
mac.

hondo
10-11-2010, 05:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If i told Hal that a seven foot cuban poofta woz kreeeping up behind him and woz going to stick hiz 8 inch schlonck up Hal's arse, i think Hal would take the safe option.
But, with global warming, Hal wont even look behind him.
mac. </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

hondo
10-11-2010, 05:48 AM
Sev, do you remember when you first decided global warming was a scam?
My guess if you're honest is when the Right wingers told you it was a scam.
IOW, what your buddy calls licking off the spoon.

I doubt if you read about it the first time and thought, " Damn! This sounds like a plot by 90% of the world's top scientists to try and extract money from hard working Republicans!" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Sev
10-11-2010, 06:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sev, do you remember when you first decided global warming was a scam?
My guess if you're honest is when the Right wingers told you it was a scam.
IOW, what your buddy calls licking off the spoon.

I doubt if you read about it the first time and thought, " Damn! This sounds like a plot by 90% of the world's top scientists to try and extract money from hard working Republicans!" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

Actually Hondo my education is very heavy in the sciences. I have never believed in man made global warming. This was determined prior to me having any serious interest in politics.

I do however believe in climate change. It happens continually.

Chopstick
10-11-2010, 07:38 AM
I was watching a show on BBCA called Top Gear last weekend. They drove a Toyota pickup from Canada to the friggin North Pole. Obviously there is still plenty of ice up there but guess what else they saw. That's right...polar bears! Go figure.

jimmyg
10-11-2010, 07:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was watching a show on BBCA called Top Gear last weekend. They drove a Toyota pickup from Canada to the friggin North Pole. Obviously there is still plenty of ice up there but guess what else they saw. That's right...polar bears! Go figure. </div></div>

Yes, but without fur. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

J

sack316
10-11-2010, 02:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Actually Hondo my education is very heavy in the sciences. I have never believed in man made global warming. This was determined prior to me having any serious interest in politics.

I do however believe in climate change. It happens continually. </div></div>

I've thought the same myself for quite sometime... even long before man existed, climate change did.

Now, I am all for keeping our environment clean and doing our part to try to keep the world a beautiful place... but I'm of the opinion the <u>man made</u> GW 'crisis' is about as critical as Y2K.

Sack

sack316
10-11-2010, 02:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If i told Hal that a seven foot cuban poofta woz kreeeping up behind him and woz going to stick hiz 8 inch schlonck up Hal's arse, i think Hal would take the safe option.
But, with global warming, Hal wont even look behind him.
mac. </div></div>

That there is perty funny Mac

Sack

hondo
10-11-2010, 02:43 PM
That proves it, I guess.

cushioncrawler
10-11-2010, 04:30 PM
Montford sez that global warming might be korrekt and might be a problem. wiki....
mac.
"...... In an interview with Bruce Robbins in The Courier Montford said, "I believe that CO2, other things being equal, will make the planet warmer. The six million dollar question is how much warmer. I'm less of a sceptic than people think. My gut feeling is still sceptical but I don't believe it's beyond the realms of possibility that the AGW hypothesis might be correct. It's more the case that we don't know and I haven't seen anything credible to persuade me there's a problem."[20]....."

Read...... ".......... I'm less of a sceptic than people think. My gut feeling is still sceptical but I don't believe it's beyond the realms of possibility that the hypothesis might be correct that a seven foot cuban poofta iz kreeping up behind me. It's more the case that we don't know and I haven't seen anything credible to persuade me there's a problem."[20]....."

cushioncrawler
10-11-2010, 04:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If i told Hal that a seven foot cuban poofta woz kreeeping up behind him and woz going to stick hiz 8 inch schlonck up Hal's arse, i think Hal would take the safe option. But, with global warming, Hal wont even look behind him.mac.</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That there is perty funny Mac Sack</div></div>Hmmmmmm -- Hal probly wouldnt worry koz he probly would be hurrying to get to hiz favorit glory hole early.
mac.

Sev
10-11-2010, 06:57 PM
Some other notables.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html

LWW
10-12-2010, 02:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hal would take the safe option.
But, with global warming, Hal wont even look behind him.
mac. </div></div>

And here's where the analogy falls apart ... the Goremons don't want a safe option. The Goremons want a destruction of the modern technological society that has brought health, prosperity, and longer life spans to the human species.

Without oil we are again back in the 17th century. There is no getting around that simple fact.

LWW

cushioncrawler
10-12-2010, 05:23 PM
Sev. Lets see what thoze 7 notables aktually sayd.
No 1.
"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models." - Freeman Dyson

Freeman sez he duznt trust the models. So, the models either over-estimate, or under-estimate (or are exakt). Ok, so far so good.
Freeman reckons they overestimate -- Freeman reckons no real problem.
Thusly, Freeman haznt aktually added anything worthy of mention.
mac.

cushioncrawler
10-12-2010, 05:25 PM
No2.
"I'm a skeptic. ...Global Warming it's become a new religion. You're not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that's important is if the scientists are correct; that's the important part." - Ivar Giaever

Fairnuff comment -- i agree -- no one could dissagree -- but i dont see anything skeptikal here.
mac.

cushioncrawler
10-12-2010, 05:29 PM
No3.
"The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control." - Robert Laughlin

Robert iz skeptikal that we can do anything to stop GW.
The comment re geology meens that there hav been extinctions in the past and they havnt really hurt us.
mac.

cushioncrawler
10-12-2010, 05:30 PM
No4.
"Society's emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming--the jury is still out." - Edward Teller

Definitely skeptikal.
mac.

cushioncrawler
10-12-2010, 05:32 PM
No5.
"Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful." - Frederick Seitz

Not so much a skeptik of GW -- more a case of beleeving that GW will be very helpfull.
mac.

cushioncrawler
10-12-2010, 05:34 PM
No6.
"The scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." - Robert Jastrow

Wow -- definitely a skeptik.
mac.

cushioncrawler
10-12-2010, 05:36 PM
No7.
"The available data on climate change, however, do not support these predictions, nor do they support the idea that human activity has caused, or will cause, a dangerous increase in global temperatures. ...These facts indicate that theoretical estimates of the greenhouse problem have greatly exaggerated its seriousness." - William Nierenberg

Definitely a skeptik.
mac.

cushioncrawler
10-14-2010, 01:10 AM
A summary.
mac.

GW iz a scam and a fraud [Hal L].

GW and future GW predictions are wrong, and in any case exaggerated, and in any case GW iznt man-made [William N].

GW, if any, iz natural not manmade [Robert J].

GW iznt harmfull -- in fakt extra CO2 iz helpfull [Fred S].

We still dont know for sure that GW iz due to extra CO2 [Ed T].

GW ought not to concern us too much koz it’s beyond our power to control [robert L].

GW iz religion, and scientists have no choice, but the amount of support is not important, the only thing that's important is if the scientists are correct [Ivar G].

GW iz grossly exaggerated koz computer models over-estimate GW [Freeman D].

hondo
10-14-2010, 06:53 AM
You left out:

GW iz a hoax dreamed up by 90% of the world's top scientists to rob hard working Republicans of their money [ the posters on BD and AZ]