Harold Lewis’ Scathing Resignation Letter From The APS

“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.”

UPDATE BELOW

As Anthony Watts said, this is a modern-day 95 Theses:

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

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. 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)

To Michael Mann, Phil Jones, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Keith Briffa: This is what scientific integrity looks like. Fuck you, your greed and your agenda.

It’s an outrage that someone of this man’s stature has to resign because science–as I’ve been saying on these intertubes since before this blog started–has been corrupted.  Fare thee well, Dr. Lewis.

If you have any interest in scientific truth, post this letter. Go to WUWT and sign the petition to have it placed on the WaPo editorial page with the same prominence recently given charlatan Michael Mann.

UPDATE From the comments at WUWT:

TGBrown says:

I am an APS member who agrees with Hal Lewis. I signed the petition–that was largely ignored–for a revision of the statement on climate science. The position that the APS has taken is an embarrassment.

For anyone writing to the WaPo, the ‘feedback’ link bounced. I sent a note instead to national@washpost.com, the national news editorial desk.

UPDATE 10-13: The APS Responded with bullshit, Lewis and two colleagues called them on it.

48 Responses

  1. Great read… thanks.

    Just when I thought integrety was dead…

  2. C-dog, you need to fix the link to WUWT. You went to the “More” page and copied the URL from there. Click on the actual post title and copy the URL from there to get the readers to the correct page when clicking from here. ;-)

  3. Holy…Fucking….SHIT!!!!

    That was Teh Awesomesauce!!!

  4. Taken care of, BC. Thanks.

  5. Shorter version of Mr Lewis’s Letter, as run through my translation machine:
    “FUCK YOU. Kelvinfuck you to Inductance with Tesla’s mangled magnetic flux measurement devices. Fuck you Gassendistyle to the speed of sound for the scam you perpetuate and your fucking pussy ass refusal to fucking debate or accept dissent. Fuck you for fucking selling your souls for money. And fuck you because you are too fucking arrogant to see how fucking wrong you are.”

    That about it?

  6. It’s not taken care of. The link to WUWT is still kaput.

  7. Odd…works for me.

  8. Oh, and I think Eddie the Bear summed it up rather nicely :D

  9. Global warmmongers lie, it’s what they do.
    And when you call them on their lies, they screech, obfuscate and ignore.

    It’s been a pretty lucrative gig, they don’t want to lose it and the religious types won’t accept they’re wrong.

    Look for them to get crazier and crazier as the “consensus” disintegrates.

  10. Link works for me too. Try the national desk email link, John.

  11. Hey, I didn’t know Soylent Green came in a bottle. Is it still flavored with the great taste of people?
    ;)

  12. That was friggin’ orgasmic, is what it was.

  13. My favorite quote:

    “It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

    Awesomeness!!!

  14. It’s Puddin’ Dippin’ Good™. ;)

  15. AGW couldn’t be more fraudulent even if they bottled it, diluted it 20,000 times, and claimed that made it more potent.

  16. That would be HGW…Homeopathic Global Warming. ;-)

  17. It is much easier to get paid to write letters like this than produce actual research.

  18. Welcome Lubos. Enjoy your work.

  19. [...] with this, Emeritus Professor of Physics Hal Lewis resigns from the American Physical Society: For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has [...]

  20. MSM will try to keep this quiet just like last week’s global warming scandal.

    If you aren’t familiar with the 10:10 dust up, see the videos below.

    While watching the first one, ask yourself if it’s sincere or if it’s a spoof.

    Keep watching until you’re sure, and then watch more.
    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7C79DEF1EE25E880

    Note: the resignations of Chris Landsea and Roger A Pielke SR. both hint at conspiracy.

    Landsea resigned because of an unethical press conference that was likely used by Al Gore as a green light to build his movie around Hurricane Katrina.

    Pielke resigned because while lead author for a major climate report, scientists worked behind his back to undermine him. These incidents are well known and not hard to research.

  21. Yes, Xyz. I posted the SplatterGate video and KiwiGate hilarity.

  22. The science is settled.

  23. Bwuhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Bravo.

  24. An aside on the importance of this resignation letter. I am getting more traffic on this post today than from the hat tip I got from Ace yesterday. Yes it’s been linked by two sites, but that’s not the kicker. The kicker is the search engine hits. I have more search hits for Harold Lewis than anything else–six times more than the next most popular search, Carla Gugino.
    If this is outpacing snooch in general hyperverse population–It’s. Fucking. Huge.

  25. Though Professor Lewis has lots of physics credentials, he doesn’t work in the climate field and the only support he gives for a claim of a “global warming scam” are the “ClimateGate” e-mails. That’s hardly solid science research, and even socially and politically, the e-mails have been reviewed by multiple panels that found the e-mails not to be indicative of some grand conspiracy or to impact the actual facts and research results of climate studies. Professor Lewis’ resignation has the appearances of a more political rather than scientific reaction – particularly strong emotions against the APS in general – though I say so with some self-caution since, as Professor Lewis correctly states: “it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives,” and I have little doubt that he is very sincere. But, it is possible to be sincere and incorrect. It is a common human failing to assume if you are an expert in one field, you can comment as an expert in a different field even if you have no training, research, or publication in that field. Also, don’t you think the comparison to Martin Luther is a bit over-the-top, though I understand that is probably the intention?

  26. great post! The letter says it all. The kicker was that the APS staff went after him to protect their precious theory.

    Same thing happened with a report on the Spanish solar industry by Gabriel Calzada Alvarez in 2009 that debunked the green jobs myth.

    It is now policy in academia and government to attack in spite of the facts. This is terribly self destructive and an existential threat.

  27. William, Al Gore is an expert in nothing scientific, yet he pontificates on this subject ad nauseum.
    James Hansen, a former expert on the planet Venus, seems to forget that the composition of our atmosphere is nothing like Venus and we are a weeeee bit further away from the sun. Oh, I forgot. The suns doesn’t have anything to do with Global Warming Climate Change Global Climate Disruption.

    Matt–Obama paid a PR firm to savage the first Spanish report. Unbelievable.

  28. [...] http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/harold-lewis-scathing-resignation-letter-from-the-aps/ [...]

  29. James Hansen, a former expert on the planet Venus

    So, he’s a pussy, then :D

  30. Well, I supposed he’s still an expert on Venus, but since he’s abandoned science for activist protest of the coal industry–on which, strangely, he is not an expert–I thought the modifier apropos. ;-)

  31. Prof Lewis resignation was not picked up by any reputable orgs because he has lost his credibility.‏
    Instead, they uncovered the truth about , the “HOAX” of the East Anglia E mails. Read the Washington Times and most reputable organizations say about that subject.
    LIST OF VERY FEW OF THE ORGS THAT KNOW GLOBAL WARMING IS INDEED DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES ( NOT DUE TO natural climatic changes the earth experienced for 10 billion years:
    1) Journal NATURE
    2) Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change I.P.C.C.
    3) Smithsonian Magazine and Smithsonian Institute
    4) NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
    5) Journal SCIENCE
    6) National Institute of Health
    7) National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (N.O.A.A)
    8) Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
    9) Helsinki University of Technology
    10) Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
    11) NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
    12) UNESCO
    13) Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change I.P.C.C.
    14) NASA Goddard Science & Space Institute
    15) Museo Antropologico de Mexico
    16) Johns Hopkins University
    17) University of Michigan
    18) Harvard University
    19) Sindicatum Climate Change Fdtn. (S.C.C.F.)
    20) 98% Nobel Laureates
    21) Scientific American Magazine
    22) International Energy Agency (I.E.A)
    23) Union of World Scientists
    24) Encyclopedia BRITANNICA
    25) Institut Français de l’Environnement
    26) World Meteorological Organization ( W.M.O.)

    watch video HOME by Yann Arthus in YOU TUBE It shows what we have done to the world ( filmed in 52 nations) and what we can do to save it.
    From now on, promise to spread the truth, not hoaxes like Lewis and others. We had enough of them.

  32. Tex, I am not going to ask you how you divined that Lewis had “lost credibility” because you have no answer. I will say that you left out one of those “reputable orgs.”– Penn State University.

  33. @ C Monster, if your reference to the Sun causing climate change is based on the claims that there has been change (warming) on other planets as well, that has been throughly debunked.

    However, your point about Al Gore not being an expert in the field is absolutely correct. In that respect, yes, I should give Professor Lewis a little more benefit of the doubt that even though he is not an expert in the field, that he has talked to his colleagues who are, and has been reasonably convinced in his position toward climate change. I think my response was based on the implication by the reports of his resignation that he is a scientist in the field. Conversely, it should be obvious to anyone that Al Gore is NOT a scientist in the field of climate and is only a spokesman for the research that is done by experts, though I realize that fame seems to carry “credentials” in many people’s minds (and, perhaps, people’s assumption that anyone doing a Power Point presentation is an “expert”).

  34. Not only did tex leave out Penn State, he included IPCC twice…

  35. Science hates to be questioned by anyone. I once had a Chemistry professor tell me that any scientist that says otherwise is lying to you.

    This is a perfect example of how one professor wants debate on an issue (serious debate not the talking points everyone knows about) and instead of rising to the challenge they attack him, some will even say he’s ‘lost credibility’ and other things.

    Science needs to put aside their huge egos for once and actually discuss things and take serious looks at everything with something so important.

  36. [...] Awesome Resignation. [...]

  37. [...] ne croit pas au réchauffement climatique lié aux gaz à effet de serre et le fait savoir. Dans sa lettre de démission, adressée la semaine dernière au Président de l’APS Curtis Callan, il souligne que [...]

  38. Nous voilà, Lafayette!

  39. [...] Harold Lewis‘ Scathing Resignation Letter From The APS « SOYLENT GREEN - Oct 8, 2010 … Harold Lewis‘ Scathing Resignation Letter From The APS. Posted on October 8, 2010 by C Monster. “I am no philosopher, I’m not going to … cbullitt.wordpress.com/…/harold-lewis-scathing-resignation-letter-from-the-aps/ [...]

  40. [...] "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." UPDATE BELOW As Anthony Watts said, this is a modern-day 95 Theses: Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa … Read More [...]

  41. So many of the replies and most of the AGW adherents claim that only well-established atmospheric physicists are qualified to evaluate AGW. The fact that many of their main proponents are not atmospheric physicists belies their own claim. The AGW theory can be completely debunked with a knowledge of undergraduate physics and mathematics, plus a few well-published parameters.

  42. @ Bryce Johnson Do you really believe “The AGW theory can be completely debunked with a knowledge of undergraduate physics and mathematics, plus a few well-published parameters.” or are you just trying to get a rise out of them? I suspect the latter, but I guess I’ll take the bait: How can you honestly believe that if it were so simple as that, it would have ben done? I’ll bet most scientists would give their firstborn to be able to publish in a peer-reviewed journal such a simple rebuttal that would bring down the entire argument of human-caused climate change. If it really were so simple, it would be clear and irrefutable by any referee, and Nature, Science, and all the top journals would fall over themselves to be able to publish such a definitive paper that would likely be cited for decades and have huge PR (and financial) value. I guess one counter-argument would be that everyone (climate scientists, journal editors, referees, etc.) is conspiring to not do that.

    Also, your use of “evaluate” and “proponents” is an incorrect parallel creating a false statement. One doesn’t need to be an expert in the field to be a proponent in the meaning of being an advocate, just like proponents for cancer research don’t need to be doctors or proponents for improved automobile safety don’t need to be engineers. But, when you talk about someone “qualified to evaluate” the research, they do indeed need to be well versed in the science (usually indicated by a publication record), know the literature, and ideally be senior enough to have experience as e.g. a referee of papers, proposals, etc. Yes, you can have non-experts in the field evaluate the science, but they need input from people who are experts in the field.

  43. Interesting you would mention journals like Science, as I just read this:

    Of course, the chance of editors at Science allowing such a response paper to get published is virtually zero. The editors at Science choose which scientists will be asked to provide peer review, and they already know who they can count on to reject a skeptic’s paper.
    Many of us have already been there, done that.
    — Roy Spencer on the Lacis paper which “proves” CO2 is the prime temperature regulator in the atmosphere.
    Found here:
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/10/does-co2-drive-the-earths-climate-system-comments-on-the-latest-nasa-giss-paper/

  44. [...] to Soylent Green and Watts) Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal [...]

  45. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamnt of in your philosophy”
    Well said Dr. Lewis. Well said.

  46. How and why did doubt/denial of global warming become associated with right-wing political platforms?…

    Firstly Mark, I would like to commend you on approaching this subject with an open mind and civility, something that can not be said for the rest of Quora. Your first study is relevant only up until 2003. At this point in the debate, skeptical scientis…

  47. [...] http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/harold-lewis-scathing-resignation-letter-from-the-aps/ [...]

  48. Carbon based oxygen has been a proven refrigerant since 1835.

    Please go to http://co2u.info

    Thank you

    Bruce a. Kershaw

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 62 other followers