Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

From The Global Warming Policy Foundation; Resignation of Physicist Hal Lewis.

Excerpt:

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.

Full text:
thegwpf.org...




IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS




DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Thank you for the link! You and others on this site make me unable to sleep but the service you give to man is EXCEPTIONAL!

Yeah I'm sure the APS and their 47,000 members who happened to resoundingly disagree with his politicized bullsh** tactics will be reeeeeal sorry to see him go...


How about taking a look at the WHOLE story behind his resignation:

Hal Lewis was part of an extremely aggressive lobbying campaign to petition the APS to revise their official statement on climate change. He seems very bitter about it in his resignation letter, implying that the petition was overw helmingly rejected by the APS council because, as he puts it - "other forces are at work".

Now never mind the fact that the council took the petition very sincerely, appointing an independent committee of esteemed scientists led by MIT nuclear physicist Daniel Kleppner to look into the matter. This committee spent FOUR MONTHS reviewing the science of climate change on the basis of Hal's allegations that it is largely unsettled and misrepresented.

So never mind that the committee found these allegations to be completely untrue. Let's just assume they were all "in on it" too (because you know, a nuclear physicist whose own work has nothing to do with climate change will get more grant money if he supports it blah blah blah).


So this shouldn't matter anyway - because if there really is no "scientific consensus" on global warming, who cares what the council says - Hal's petition is what really matters, right?


So let's go ask those 47,000 or so scientists that had an opportunity to sign it:

Only 0.45% of Physicists sign Denier Petition

Yes that's right - out of 47,000 possible respondents: a whopping 206 of them put their name to this crucial document. And as the link above points out - this amounts to 0.45%, which coincidentally is roughly the same number of people who fall for Nigerian email scams. Weird huh!

Anyway you can read more about the demographics of the signees here in this report.


BUT WAIT - THERE'S MORE!!


Because to be fair - I see in his resignation letter Hal implies that the 200 signatures were just acquired to meet some bare minimum requirement to bring the proposal before council, because it was "not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list". This is kind of an odd thing to complain about considering earlier in the letter he complains about getting reprimanded for already having access to and emailing some portion of that membership list, but whatever - moving on...


Let's see what else Hal and his diligent denier buddies did to get around this injustice and spread the good word:

They had their petition published in the Journal Nature

For those of you that don't know - Nature is arguably the most prestigious and well known scientific journal in the world. Science simply doesn't get any more "mainstream" than this. Their demographics page boasts that the journal has a print circulation of 50,000+ copies, with a pass along rate of 8. That means over 8 x 50,000 = 400,000 people, mostly scientists, read it. Meanwhile their unique monthly online readership amounts to ONE AND A HALF MILLION full fledged practicing nerds.

Publishing in Nature is basically the scientists' equivalent of getting your own ad at the Super Bowl.

...so Hal Lewis can cry me a river over how hard it was to get people to know about his pathetic petition. And none of this even accounts for the fact it was also put up as an open letter on the internet and blogged, pinged and tweeted across the rabid reaches of the denial-o-sphere.


BUT WAIT - THERE'S EVEN MORE!!


Because if anyone is still holding on to some wicked fantasy that Hal Lewis is just some honest, ostracized science folk hero, trying to make the truth heard in the face of overwhelming collusion amongst the big bad scientific elite - let me thoroughly squash that for you:

Go back to the Nature link and look at the first author of this epic petition (the first name under the title, and the one that comes right before Lewis).

Fred Singer is one of the most notoriously well known corporate hack scientists out there in the world of political lobbying. His sourcewatch page has a detailed rap sheet documenting 20 years of pimping out his PhD on behalf of Big Tobacco and Oil companies. Look at his body of work:

In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top Five Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen.

He also stated that he had undertaken consulting work on "perhaps a dozen or so" energy companies. This included work on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell, Sun, Unocal, the Electric Power Research Institute, Florida Power and the American Gas Association.

Singer is one of the classic outspoken climate skeptic "scientists" whose pockets happen to be stuffed with cash from Big Oil and Coal. Ironically he is also one of the most vocal critics of the supposed lack of integrity in peer-reviewed mainstream science. So what a coincidence that Lewis' name appears right next to his as co-authors of this petition, and now Hal's crying the same song.

The fact is his resignation letter is nothing but sour grapes and overdramatic grandstanding from a man who got busted and called out on his delusional crusade on behalf of Big Oil. The facts and the science are completely clear on this, and once again vindicated the TRUE story behind climate change.

Yet the minions of the internet continue to eat this sort of crap up because they are swallowing it whole from blogs that are set up to deliberately USE YOU to spread this disinformation. In the meantime you completely miss the point behind the real conspiracy hidden within global warming. Stop being their puppet.

If you have the slightest amount of brain matter in your head, it's not too difficult to figure out what utter BS anthropogenic global warming is. I sat in several years ago on a lecture given by a world renowned climatologist and he spent HOURS giving reasons why it is utter garbage. He was at the University of Arizona and there was even several articles written about his lecture. I've been trying to locate his information for some time but it was 6 years ago now. But I have seen his reasoning repeated and he said that this would be used as a tool to pass laws and make money right as the AGW bandwagon was getting started again. Anyways, my only point is that if you think about it logically and really go look at the evidence scientifically, at the very least what you will find is there is not enough evidence to support the AWG claims. Which are really, really ludicrous. This doesn't apply to pollution being bad, or needing to be responsible for cleaning up after yourself, just man made global warming which is just a global control scheme.

Nice thread but watch out because the globo-nauts will be here soon to tear you apart for questioning the status quo.

The thought that human beings can cause more than a miniscule difference in the level of green house gases is laughable.

Quit drinking the kool-aid folks.

reply to post by Redwookieaz


It's funny because I'm sure if someone came in here going on about how obviously real global warming is because they "went to a lecture once, and Al Gore talked about it for hours" - you would be all over them for how apparently naive and brainwashed they are.

But if it's some skeptic sounding guy talking, that must mean he's automatically legit right...just, because? Read this and tell me if it sounds anything like the lecture you went to:

Watts it like at a climate skeptic speakers event?

Oh wait - but it becomes pretty obvious if you just "think about it logically and really go look at the evidence scientifically", yeah?

How much do you wanna bet I can PROVE you haven't looked at the scientific evidence logically at all - you've only looked at it lazily, just like every other so called skeptic here on ATS.

You know how I know? It's your ridiculously cocky attitude. The skeptics who give these sort of talks completely exploit that sort of reaction in people like you. They play up how "obvious" and "simple" it all is if you just consider their version of the evidence: the role of the Sun, the warming of the past, etc, etc...

They fully understand people's brains love to take the path of least resistance. So all they have to do is offer it to you on a silver platter and they KNOW you won't ever bother questioning it. Then they rile you up with how much you've apparently been lied to by the supposed globonaut eco-nazies. The end result is that you never even realize how distorted, over-simplified, fabricated, cherry-picked, and flat out dishonest their side of the story is. And you immediately go running off drunk on their snake oil telling everyone else to "stop drinking the kool-aid".

You want to look at the evidence logically and scientifically then go here:
Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says

And I mean actually read it, fact check it, process it - instead of running off to get someone to spoon-feed you some distorted Coles notes version of the truth. If you can manage that, then come back and tell me how obvious the big global warming scam is - and bring something better to the party than "I heard about it in a lecture once"..

Because the fact is simply having some brain matter in your head is not good enough to figure it all out - and all it does is lead to the same predictable, naive conclusions you just served up in that post. If you want your brain matter to count then you have to actually use it by thinking about the subject critically, instead of just superficially looking for the easiest explanation.


So let me start you off with the perfect example:

You think global warming is just some big control scheme to make money - this is why it's so obvious right? Let me ask you this then: how does the world make money?

Do we all make it by sitting around scratching our asses? Of course not. Yet this is pretty much what all the elitists, PTB, banksters, etc, need to do to make ludicrous amounts of it.

So how do they do that?

They make money by making sure the rest of us are endlessly running around making it for them. And that means the more we produce/consume/needlessly waste so that we have to produce it again/etc - the MORE money THEY get to make without even doing anything.

So now look at the global warming issue again - and instead of just getting stuck on all the incessant yammering about taxes and control like every other brainless sap on this website is already conditioned to do - try to actually think about what AGW really calls for, and what the end result actually means, ie:

- A sustainable economy that only produces what it needs instead of all the vapid, pointless excess we have today that merely serves to help the rich get richer.
- A society built around renewable, free energy that comes directly from the Sun and the wind, instead of from limited resources like Oil that are completely controlled by the richest people on the planet already.

Global warming means we have to become more conscientious of our energy use and our consumption overall. It basically means we need to trim the fat on our filthy economic habits.

So where is all that fat coming from?

From the TOP. From the people completely exploiting our economy to make themselves richer and richer while you and I slave away making it happen for them below. Global warming is all about carefully dismantling this system and rebuilding one that puts the needs of the planet and the people before the greed of the ones exploiting it. So how is that all a big scam to make them more money?

You think it's just some elaborate hoax - one that's been in the works for over 100 years, one that virtually all the world's most respected scientists agree on, because it's "obviously" some big scheme to control your life with taxes?

YOUR LIFE IS ALREADY CONTROLLED THROUGH GAS PRICES.

And the only people who are lecturing you on what a big scam global warming is are the same crooks who want to keep controlling your life this way. They are the same ones who want to stop you from realizing how much AGW exposes the REAL scam hidden underneath by instead having you focus on how apparently "obvious" it all is.

reply to post by mc_squared

So never mind that the committee found these allegations to be completely untrue. Let's just assume they were all "in on it" too (because you know, a nuclear physicist whose own work has nothing to do with climate change will get more grant money if he supports it blah blah blah).

You apparently do not understand what went on here. I can tell you from first hand experience that grant money does NOT go to actually RESEARCH with an unbiased methodology and come to an unbiased conclusion. Most, not all, but MOST grants are given by corporations, groups, and organizations who want the research institution to "validate" their bias, any way that they can. Thus, tobacco companies pay for research which concludes that smoking does not cause cancer, pharmaceutical companies do the same to validate that the drugs they are pushing do no harm, and politicians enlist polling firms that validate their "lead" in the polls.
You can be naive and believe that all research is perfectly on the up-and-up, but I have seen, first hand, too many grants awarded for "findings" that were already predetermined.
In addition, the AGW "proponents DO have billions at stake, and have done a good job blurring the lines between pollution, which is a valid concern, with AGW. I do not wish to debate AGW here, as that has been done thousands of times here, but the OP posting does indeed point out the TRUTH behind much of the fraud that has been perpetrated upon the public.
There are many academics who know how fraudulent the process is, but continue the fraud, because that is where their bread is buttered. Believe what you wish, but I KNOW that such fraud is rampant.

A poignant letter from a man walking away from money and power. I find his sentiments very believable. Some of us reach points in our lives when telling the truth matters a great deal more than we ever thought it could.

It seems like there was a point where TPTB felt that it's use of MSM was not going to be enough to explain the coming cyclical and inevitable climate changes and upheavals. Because it was unthinkable to tell the truth, they looked for lies and found Al Gore as campaign manager to charmingly sell this to the public. As time went on, the true cost of this campaign they had started became clear and that's when ClimateGate hit. Now we're left with an empty space. Earth changes are cyclical, inevitable and thus apparent to many and just because it is no longer financially advantageous for TPTB to claim greenhouse gasses as the culprit, doesn't mean that these changes have stopped.

In truth, I'd like to see a thousand more letters like the one I just read, each giving some part of a piece of a puzzle that we, at large, are still left trying to understand.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


No...you obviously don't understand what went on here. Did you even read the rest of my post?

I just showed you clear proof that Hal Lewis is the fraud, that he is in fact the one deeply involved with corrupted scientists. Scientists who have a long history of advocating ideas like second hand smoke as just being some crazy "environmental myth".

And you somehow try to turn this around to tell me how I'm being naive and don't understand that there's scientists out there who take money to research things like smoking doesn't cause cancer?

No kidding - I just gave you direct evidence these are literally the exact same scientists that are now getting paid to say global warming is a scam!!



I swear talking to people around here on global warming is like trying to talk to robots:

"Hey guys - look at all these interesting FACTS I found that show you're being mislead..."

*bleep bloop blop* No. Does not compute. Does not compute. Global warming = scam. I read that on the internet so it must be true. You are brainwashed. FACTS DO NOT COMPUTE. *bleep blop*

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by mc_squared

 

So never mind that the committee found these allegations to be completely untrue. Let's just assume they were all "in on it" too (because you know, a nuclear physicist whose own work has nothing to do with climate change will get more grant money if he supports it blah blah blah).

You apparently do not understand what went on here. I can tell you from first hand experience that grant money does NOT go to actually RESEARCH with an unbiased methodology and come to an unbiased conclusion. Most, not all, but MOST grants are given by corporations, groups, and organizations who want the research institution to "validate" their bias, any way that they can. Thus, tobacco companies pay for research which concludes that smoking does not cause cancer, pharmaceutical companies do the same to validate that the drugs they are pushing do no harm, and politicians enlist polling firms that validate their "lead" in the polls.
You can be naive and believe that all research is perfectly on the up-and-up, but I have seen, first hand, too many grants awarded for "findings" that were already predetermined.
In addition, the AGW "proponents DO have billions at stake, and have done a good job blurring the lines between pollution, which is a valid concern, with AGW. I do not wish to debate AGW here, as that has been done thousands of times here, but the OP posting does indeed point out the TRUTH behind much of the fraud that has been perpetrated upon the public.
There are many academics who know how fraudulent the process is, but continue the fraud, because that is where their bread is buttered. Believe what you wish, but I KNOW that such fraud is rampant.

I think it's ironic that the alarmists use some small grant 20 years from big oil as a reason to discredit a skeptic, but fail to realize that big oil is firmly behind the AGW bus. BP alone has spent 550 million on pushing the AGW agenda. Carbon trading was the brainchild of the boys at Enron.

Carbon trading benefits big oil, they sell carbon.

When the kids in tie dyed shirts start pushing the establishments causes we are all in trouble.