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.
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.
In my younger years, I was an extreme proponent of man made global warming. Age, and perhaps a lost innocence where science, money, and politics converged, allowed me to review what I though was an absolute and realize that my bias was coloring my judgment. Wisdom that came with that age, and exposure to a variety of scientific fields through the work of my colleagues. Colleagues who do not work in the same field as I. (As a third career I work for an environmental agency and have had many conversations with people in a variety of fields.) That exposure to those fields allows for a greater understanding of the whole. Again I would not dispute the overall aspect of global warming. Its just not convincing that humans are have the significant impact that is portrayed as human advanced global warming. This becomes even more prevalent when you begin to see a swing back to the “global cooling” concept. Is either camp correct? Only time will tell. Would I argue that we shouldn’t care in either case? No, my final statement should have made that clear.
Bobbo sorry i missed your previous statement. If you truly believe that “Science is science.” That’s your prerogative. The underlying “science” is impacted by the money. If you don’t agree with that that’s fine to. I want you to write my grant funding proposals.
Clancy–so old but still think you can break a tautology huh? I also have talked to many various people in different fields and they told me that talking to many various people in different fields is ((fill in your own funny quip, or deeply penetrating insight here)).
Ha, ha.
Ahh. then I guess you didn’t learn anything. So either your open about your closed mind, or simply didn’t ask a good question when you had the chance(does that count as a quip?). I still have that position for a grant writer. Pay depend on results obtained. As far as breaking a tautology nope. I would hope that you would know this a a section for comments. I supplied my comment. I had neither the intention nor the belief that I would change anyone’s mind. Its just fun to post on occasion. Yes I do expect responses, some are comical, some are belligerent, some are even intelligent, even insightful (very few of those). Nor do I usually intend to tweak anyone’s nose (except alfreds on occasion). If my comments caused some one to think great. If not meh (damn internet giving me bad habits. I would never had said meh in the past). Perhaps when youthful absolutes catch up to age and reality there can be some mutual meeting of the minds. Of course after thirty years in the science “business” some folks (usually younger) say I’m cynical (usually like its a bad thing, I prefer to think of it as extremely skeptical). Peace, out.
bobbo- I generally enjoy your diatribes, but you are getting a little shrill on this one.
It’s all about the data. And their data has continuously been found wanting. That is actually good because eventually the doubters will make the believers stop being lazy and get the input data they need, both spatially and temporally. However, by the AGW believers shrilly denying any problems with their data, they give the deniers the pry bar to attack the conclusions.
I am agnostic on this one. You may not believe that oil is finite on this planet and that we are closer to the end of oil than the beginning, but even the military is now on board with peak oil.
And you really need to watch the following:
http://today.caltech.edu/theater/item?story_id=24502
Clancy–for an old guy you are pretty wrapped up in yourself. I guess that is more a habit than a character, so you can evaluate how you know what you know and how/when you change your mind.
Removing the self referential from your post, we are left with your question as to whether or not my fill in the blank word play would be satisfied by saying I failed to ask a good question.
Hmmm. No. Thats a fail. Not a quip. In fact, you wind up denying the very premise of the question. Ha. Ha.
So I’ll ask this puzzler, hopefully for your amusement: if money corrupts and invalidates everything it touches, and money touches everything, how do you take a position for or against something based on the presence of money?
Screaming about some disaster or other real or imagined has turned out to be a great way to make money. This sort of thing, making the facts fit the theory, in order to keep the funding coming has long be a problem in the medical field and it now looks to be a problem in all fields of research.
Anyone who knows the basics on what science is and how research ought to be done and looks at what is publicly available is going to know that we don’t have the data to justify putting any confidence in the modals nor are the measures proposed going to accomplish much other than making some individuals wealthy and others poor. The benefit if any to global climate is going to be limited at best.
civengine==shrill? Let’s see, what DID I say? ////// “I casually count 7 errors in your recital.”===you call that shrill?
This is also interesting: “bobbo- I generally enjoy your diatribes…..” /// What, you got one standard of enjoyment for other people, and a different one for yourself? Explain your new found discomfort==for yourself if no one else.
I would have “expected” at least a challenge to: “name one.” Maybe that is too shrill also?
Why the tangent to peak oil? We can’t reach it soon enough in my book. We need to get off carbon for the future of our Western Society. Darn–besides AGW, ocean acidification/pollution, interruption of the ocean conveyor belt, climate moving north into significant poorer soils for growing food, there was some new twist revealed a few weeks ago. Can’t recall it now.
I agree it is all about the data. The best data we can get==not perfect data. Do you require perfect data civengine??? Data from many sources==averaged out, over time. So Russia data was stuck in summer for a few years, and one temp guage was put over a air conditioner exhaust. Was that the only data available for the climate models?
Was it?
#63 Bobbo: “There is not and cannot be ‘proof’ of global warming. There is no control group.”
So if there is no proof, then it must be religion. Oh, wait — what you mean is that the theory isn’t falsifiable.
Bobbo, you have convinced me that you have absolutely no understanding of science. You just like trolling this blog, trying to impress with your wit. But your ignorance runs bone deep.
smith==you are starting to scare me. What part of “best science/idea/theory we have broad consensus on right now and we will continue to work on it” do you wish to ignore?
#60–fred==the teaser at your link is conflicted. The left side makes Judith Curry sound like a critic of the AGW position while the In Brief on the right sounds like her criticism is that we aren’t reacting enough. I assume there is a longer article but you have to pay to see it? If not, is there another link?
Should an organization of people who are convinced of a long evaluated position really spend their time on an issue if one percent or less of who knows who wants to continue to disagree with arguments already considered?
Really? What human being ever does that?
New theories? “Why don’t we invest in Cold Fusion?”==Haw Haw.
Silly to think a minority position should be honored as if it was anything other. Accept the consensus or found the revolution.
Silly Americans.
China has basically settled the issue. No action is needed with regards to any global warming fears, because due to China and the rest of the developing world, any action taken by the US and Europe will have no significant impact on temperatures, even if the science and models are assumed correct.
US+Canada+Europe+Japan+South Korea+Australia is <50% of carbon emissions and dropping.
China is at 25% and rising.
Scientists claim at least an 80% cut is needed in global emissions.
If you believe the science, then you should be pushing for development of alternative energy that is cheaper than existing versions, without subsidies. Trying to restrict what the US does or raising its energy prices is pointless. If you believe the science, that global warming is a threat, then the only way to stop it is to get China to stop using coal,and the rest of the developing world as well. To this point China and India are adopting a bunch of PR stunt windmills and solar plants, but the coal plants are still being opened.
Just one question Professor Lewis, how’s that missile defense thingy coming along?
#77 bobbo
“I assume there is a longer article”
I already told you that only the first part was on line.
If you can tear yourself away from your keyboard for a few minutes, you could always walk (!) to your local library and look it up. Alternatively, you might consider buying (gasp!) the magazine to read the full article. This way you might be able to improve your understanding of science in general.
“Should an organization of people who are convinced of a long evaluated position really spend their time on an issue if one percent or less of who knows who wants to continue to disagree with arguments already considered?”
The short answer to that question is yes. Dr. Curry is an experienced climate scientist who broadly agrees with the known data but not necessarily all of the interpretations. Her point is that, although most of the opposition comes from cranks, there are some critiques that are valid and that deserve to be taken seriously. These include arguments that have NOT already been considered and dismissed.
I find your attitude in this matter to be somewhat binary, whereas the world is full of shades of gray. Taking your position, The ‘ultraviolet catastrophe’ at the beginning of the 20th century would never have been resolved (if you don’t know what that was, look it up) because Einstein would never have been allowed to suggest using Plank’s idea of quantization to go against the then prevailing wisdom.