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

The following is taken from the James Delingpole Telegraph blog.


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)

 
I hope people share this article with as many people as possible.
 
Global warming is just a con and is just about certain people making money, Al Gore are you listening.

Who is winning the argument?

I have been reading Gerald Warner's blog Latest climate climbdown: the Royal Society reviews its statements on global warming

I'm wondering who is winning the climate change / global warming argument?

An extract from the article;

The latest institutional retreat from uncritical support of the AGW hypothesis is one that will chill warmists to the core: the Royal Society has announced it is to review its public statements on climate change. The Society now believes that its previous communications did not properly distinguish between what was widely agreed on climate science and what is not fully understood. It has appointed a panel to review its statements, assisted by two critical sub-groups, including a number of Fellows who have doubts about the received view on the risks of increasing CO2 levels.

In previous blog entries I have written that I wanted to be told the truth about climate change and global warming. Up until last year I could of gone into either camp, but when the climategate files came to light I became a sceptic.

I have no scientific knowledge to go through all the data to come to any scientific conclusion, but I have read a lot from other sites like Watts Up With That and I became more sceptical about global warming.

An extract;

Clearly, that kind of blind commitment to the AGW cause will no longer be endorsed by the Royal Society. It is a sign of the times. Two months ago the Science Museum in London changed the name of its Climate Change Gallery to the Climate Science Gallery, as it began to distance itself from the partisan assumptions of the climate lobby. In fact it was abashed by the derision to which its previous posture had been subjected by visitors. Its director said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.”

If these societies and groups are, as the article says 'began to distance itself from the partisan assumptions of the climate lobby.' Then the government and the EU should think again about going down the path of carbon taxing, and cutting down the emissions, which will cost us billions.

The argument hasn't been won by any side yet.

There should be an open debate on climate change / global warming with all the facts and figures, for and against, to finally assure the public one way or the other on what is really happening to our climate.

Are we actually causing global warming with the carbon emissions, or is it a natural occurrence?

The public need to be told one way or the other.

Climate Change Time Again.

Just read this article.

The headline reads;

New evidence for man-made global warming

Man is responsible for global warming, according to a new report that hits back at the growing scepticism around climate change

An extract from the above article;

The Met Office-led report looked at the latest figures on global temperatures, melting sea ice and humidity. It also considered new evidence on the extent of warming in the Antarctic, rainfall patterns and salinity of the oceans.

It concluded that is was "human influence" that is changing the climate.

The article reminded me of this article a week ago.

The headline reads;

Met Office to look again at global warming records

The Met Office is to re-examine 160 years of global temperature records following the 'climategate' scandal.

An extract from the article;

The project, in partnership with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), will gather the original temperature records from thousands of weather stations around the world. The readings will be double-checked and new information that has become available, such as improved understanding of atmospheric change, will be added. The data will then be independently analysed to assess how the temperature has changed over different regions.

The new analysis, that will take three years, will not only provide a more detailed picture of global warming but boost public confidence in the science of climate change.

Now did the Met Office forget it was looking at all it's data again, or did these scientists not get the memo?

Or did they go through the 150 years of data in a week?

I am still sceptical about global warming. I am very sceptical about CO2 being the main contributor to global warming, but the governments of the world are still going ahead with the carbon credit scheme costing Britain, and other countries, millions if not billions of pounds.

All I want is the truth.

Copenhagen Climate Conference

I have been watching and reading about the climate conference these last two weeks and I have seen some things that worry me.

The main reason for the conference is to stop or reduce the effects of climate change (global warming), whether you believe in climate change or not that is another argument.

All i have seen is developed nations, like the US and the UK, desperately wanting to give billions of taxpayers money (OUR MONEY) into a global fund for climate change, and also saying they will reduce CO2 output by ridiculous amounts.

You have the developing nations, like China and India, being told that they must invest in renewable energy sources and not to use their own natural resouces like coal, but the developed nations would help them with money from this global fund.

Then we have the poor nations, who just want as much money as they can get from the global fund. Not because they want to invest it in renewable energy and to build up their country, but just so the leaders and their supporters can keep as much of the money for themselves.

Then we have the scientific research behind the IPCC. I'm no scientist but from what i have read on the subject there is still some doubt on the exact causes of climate change and if global warming is actually happening.

What i would expect is scientists on both sides debating it at the conference, but all i have seen is scientist and other people who are skeptics of climate change being refused entry or denied to ask questions on the subject to scientists and speakers at the conference.

Are they hiding something from us, or are they that afraid of debating the subject in case someone asks the wrong question?

Before this conference i wouldn't of put myself in either camp, if i am honest i was slightly with the skeptics, but after all that i have seen at the conference and the research i have done myself on the internet and the library i am definitely a skeptic.

All i ever wanted was the truth, but from what i have seen and read the IPCC scientists, world governments and the green movement don't want to here anything other than the world is heating up, the seas will rise 20 feet in the next 100 years, the North and South Poles are melting and that humans are the only reason for climate change.

This reminds me of the old Soviet Union where if someone spoke out against the government or communism they were taken away and never heard from again.

We live in a democracy, or are meant to, and it looks like we are being denied our right to free speech.

What with the UK being part of the EU, which is an unelected body, and now people being unable to speak out against something that clearly isn't 100% proven is very worrying indeed.

I maybe wrong, but i believe we are on a slope towards something that people died for in there thousands to prevent.

Anyone remember WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II.

Ever wondered how to make a HUGE Carbon Footprint?

Well it's easy.

Just get a few thousand of your friends to come along, invite some press and have a chat about saving the planet.

I found this Article at Watts Up With That.

Here is a quote from the article;

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

Read the full article here.

The people going to this conference are telling us to reduce our CO2 output.

Is it a case of do as we say, not as we do.

Or is it a fact they are just hypocrites, who enjoy their luxuries to much.

We should be making small, but significant steps to help the environment.

Like i have said previously in this blog, we should start by stopping the deforestation of the rain forests, and to start planting more trees and plants.

I would love to know how much this conference is costing and who is paying for it?

Climate Change? What to do?

Yes i have been reading the papers again.

I read this article. It was about deforestation and how to stop it.

Why can't the Copenhagen conference start here with a way to stop deforestation. After all the rain forests have been called 'the lungs of the world' before now.

Here is a quote from the article;

Richer countries would need to put forward money to set up the mechanisms such as a satellite monitoring service to ensure countries being paid not to chop down trees are keeping their promises. There will also need to be cash to help provide alternative incomes for people in and around the forests.

WWF is calling for funding of around £27 billion per year by 2020 to keep the forests standing.

The money could be raised by making forests part of the carbon markets. This would mean industries could pay to protect forests to offset some of their pollution. People could even buy ‘forest bonds’ that grow in value over time as polluting becomes more expensive.

Now, as a start, £27 billion by 2020 is a hell of a lot cheaper than the TRILLIONS of pounds that politicians have said we need to spend to stop CO2 emissions.

If CO2 is increasing, in the atmosphere, then why not start by stopping the deforestation of the rain forests that helps regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I am sure the majority of the population of the world would agree with something like this. Also if everyone buys two or three plants to help off set there own emissions, I'm sure it could all help in the long run.

I haven't got all the answers, but what the politicians are proposing does make me suspicious of their motives.

Climate Change? 4

I have been watching a very interesting You Tube video on 'Plato Says' Blog.

It is called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'.

If you have any sort of doubts about global warming and climate change check out Plato Says Blog

If you want to watch the documentary, Click Here.

Climate Change? 3

Here is a very interesting article about climate change.

If what the article is saying is true then the whole world has been lied to.

It maybe that some of the quotes, from the emails, have been used in the wrong context by the people who wrote them. Then again they might of kept certain data from the public.

I won't be passing judgment just yet, but i believe there will be a huge backlash against governments and environmentalists in the near future unless they give the public more information.

I have found a website that has all the emails taken from the climatic research unit in East Anglia. There is a huge amount of emails to go through and i bet the people who took them haven't gone through them all yet.

Click here if you are interested.

This will definitely put the cat among the pigeons.

I wonder what will happen next?