Scientist admits global warming scam, and resigns

Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical 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.

in his own resignation letter, a top scientist openly admits the big money, global warming scam. It is good to see that there are still some scientists that value truth more than money.

reply to post by tracer7


this is good to see. hopefully his statement causes more people to question the validity of the global warming phenomena.
it doesn't take a scientist to look at weather patterns and see that it is actually getting colder.
S & F

Why is it so important for you to believe (sorry to know) there is no global warming. Logic: If you can't say it's a global warming because of to less knowledge, how can you "know" there is no (man made) global warming?

Ignorance and fear? Pollution is not healthy, right?

reply to post by tracer7
More to make the scientific 'community' look ugly.
I am surprised that you haven't got someone arguing for the existence of global warm, excuse me, 'climate change'.

well, this was already covered here in ATS, and this guy is not really a climate specialist

this is from OCT 9 ... today OCT 18

reply to post by Faiol


But he is...........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)

Originally posted by cushycrux
Why is it so important for you to believe (sorry to know) there is no global warming. Logic: If you can't say it's a global warming because of to less knowledge, how can you "know" there is no (man made) global warming?

Ignorance and fear? Pollution is not healthy, right?

Why is it so important for you to believe that global warming IS man made? Has nothing to do with ignorance or fear, most people are all for keeping the planet cleaner, but not under false premise. This "well even if it isnt real, atleast we are cleaning up the planet" attitude is reckless and ignorant......

I cant murder a man in cold blood and then say "oh well he was just a criminal anyway" it doesnt work like that.

Raping the world for trillions of dollars under the premise of a false scientific theory (passed as fact)is unnacceptable.

One must also remember that this "man made" global warming IS a theory, its just been repeated so long that people take it as fact, thats the MO of people pushing an agenda.

Global warming, of course its real, but other planets in our universe are warming also exponentially. Our own earth goes in cycles, people seem to forget the most basic things taught in school as children...Ice ages, thawing, warm cycles etc.....

Can someone please tell me at what point in recent history we deliberately bred in ignorance and complacency to the point where we just take everything thats thrown at us as gospel just because people with lots of money at stake say so?

This is an interesting read and throws some light on the "consensus": joannenova.com.au...

EDIT: this blog has a recurring bug where the pages sometimes overlap, if it happens, just refresh the page.

reply to post by cushycrux


It is not that I need to know it is a scam, I understand pollution is bad. bad science is also bad. bad science put forward as fact for profit is even worse. exposing the criminals who would knowingly perpetrate theft from the masses using science is exactly why this article caught my eye. In the scientists letter he brings up the bigger issue, the military industrial complex = the powers that be.

This is the third time this has been posted on ATS already.

Hal Lewis is just some 90 year old crank physicist who has absolutely no background in climate science. He merely resigned from the American Physical Society because he has been trying to push his global warming denial propaganda on them for years, and he was mad that nobody would agree with him. So he wrote this big, melodramatic resignation letter and now all the denier blogs have picked it up and are posting it for all of you to sponge up without any scrutiny to his motives..

For those of you who want to jump to conclusions go right ahead. For any of you who actually want to hear the WHOLE story about this incident, and see how it is being used to manipulate you - then read on:


(Copied from the other two threads)


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.

Originally posted by mc_squared


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!

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...

Oh yea and all 47,000 were climate experts and into this thing neck deep.

And the APS member list he is complaining that not only did he get reprimanded for using some part of the list that hes denied a total list. Bunch of control freeks want to squelch all dissent. Its certain that his partial list was not given to him by request but were part of some other list with known members.

And he didnt do bad with that list getting what 200 signatures. Wonder how big that list was. He certainly feels that if he had the whole list that he could show large type dissent. Are you certain that all 47,000 got to look at this or just those on the short list?

reply to post by mc_squared

...this amounts to 0.45%, which coincidentally is roughly the same number of people who fall for Nigerian email scams. Weird huh!

I just nearly spit out my coffee. This says so much. Thanks for the laugh, and for spelling this all out so that I don't have to. I mostly feel like I'm talking to a brick wall with climate change deniers.

Hello,
I will admit, I am no expert on the topic of global warming. As someone who is impartial on the subject, I will say this. I have heard both sides of the argument, but I think the truth can be more easily found on this subject because it is based on science, which is based on evidence. I want to see the facts. It also does not help that people are accusing others of being stupid and ignorant. It makes you look like an ass.

I thought that the earth was just following the cycle of the sun, when it is more active, there is warming. When it is less active, there is cooling.

reply to post by cushycrux


Wouldnt ignorance and fear be not asking the question in the first place?
Believing what you say, with no proof to be given is indeed ignorance.

reply to post by cushycrux


You are getting pollution and CO2 mixed up. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to life.

The environmental movement has been hijacked by this scam and is neglecting the real problems - loss of habitat, water and air pollution and abuse of our resources.

All that has NOTHING to do with global warming or CO2.

reply to post by Gamma MO


It seems "the elite" can hijack anything they want first to milk resources out of the ignorant populace and second to make it crash&burn by giving it a terrible reputation. I realise money is often the strongest incentive to the choices we make but still I cannot fathom that so many people would go along for the ride. Surely you would expect more resistance, no?

Yes CO2 is not a big pollutant, if it even is a pollutant at all. I think lots of people are getting CO(combustion gasses) mixed up with CO2 the necessary building blocks of life. You would think someone with a harvard degree in chemistry would know that.....but its not about what they learn there....its the connections to corruption that really matter!

reply to post by cushycrux


You cannot claim enough evidence and truth towards man-made global warming there for you cannot JUSTLY make lawful decisions based on baseless claims, if such becomes the norm were screwed.

Global warming may or may not be "real" and may or may not be a normal natural inevitable cycle the earth goes through regardless of the human life-style....because this is a possibility that cannot be denied or refuted it has to be considered and because it has to be considered laws cannot and should not be able to pass upon the human populous that hold them accountable for effects that are possibly not of their actions.

I agree though that the current world design is "not healthy" because its absolutely inefficient and unsustainable, however this is not just cause for taxation on "life" this is a completely asinine concept that only corrupt man would concoct.

reply to post by burdenofdreams

I'm talking to a brick wall with climate change deniers.

I'm always amazed at the way the sheep seamlessly transition the former Global Warming into the swank new Climate Change.

Climate Change? What the hell does that even mean? Of course the climate changes. It's been changing for 4 billion years. Now we need to throw a few trillion at this concept. Really? What are we trying to convey?

Seriously man, this is Kool-Aid at it's best and you seem to have thrown back a few already.

Becker