8 ms·

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

53 points by jackfoxy 16y ago

sprout 16y ago
>I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends. This guy has a lot of gall to end with that after making such flimsy allegations of fraud against an entire academic discipline. His hyperbolic screeching about the "flood of money" would better be directed at the oil industry. That's not to say the climate change crowd is without its biases, but if he honestly thinks that they are intentionally committing fraud for love of money and prestige, he is deluded. Personally, I think that the people he slanders are acting honestly, but I might present a more modest hypothesis: The people who do research on the climate and on the environment have a dramatic love of forests and lakes and natural, untouched wilderness. Anyone who stands in the midst of the mountains cannot help but see why this is. These people might even be willing to lie to protect them. Money, I assure you, has nothing to do with it. But unfailing love of the natural world? Sure, there are people who would lie without hesitation to protect that. But money? Money has very little importance to people who advocate for reductions in fossil fuels, and I think Hal Lewis' focus on money shows how little he understands the people he maligns. I don't include myself among them because I am no such researcher, but I share their values, their love of the wild things. Lewis, I'm not entirely sure what he loves. I find it difficult to believe he's really interested in science. I can't believe a rationalist would look at any of the evidence available and be so convinced of fraud.
- hugh3 16y ago
  He makes some good points, but probably goes too far when he starts impugning the motives of others. The APS shouldn't have dashed off such a dodgy statement about climate change without better consultation with its thousands of members (including me). And the word "incontrovertible" is too strong for just about anything in science, and shouldn't have been used.
  - smokeyj 16y ago
    Debate is being intentionally suppressed, data is intentionally being manipulated and obscured, sources of information go missing, trillions of dollars are being poured in by Governments to influence the outcome, and outcomes are being declared by stacked committees. Call it what you want, just don't call it science.
    - whyenot 16y ago
      If you're going to throw grenades like this please also provide some specific citations that back up your position. Otherwise, it's difficult to take you seriously.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        Sources of information going missing (article written before climategate): http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228291/dog-ate-global-warming/patrick-j-michaels http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228291/dog-ate-global... (Sometime before this occurred, Mann sent emails saying they would delete data rather than respond to a FOIA request. A FOIA request occurred.) As for suppression of debate, this APS episode is just one example of many.
    - danielharan 16y ago
      Trillions? A wee bit of hyperbole, no?
      - borism 16y ago
        yes it is
    - jonhendry 16y ago
      Trillions? When was the last time you saw a climate science postdoc driving a Maybach?
      - jonhendry 16y ago
- smokeyj 16y ago
  "but if he honestly thinks that they are intentionally committing fraud for love of money and prestige, he is deluded." It's official, sprout, the non-researcher thinks that an American Physical Society of sixty-seven years is wrong simply 'because'. Without reading the emails of climategate, sprout leads us to the truth intrinsic to himself only. Floods of money are directed to "the oil industry", often times by customers. Money is flooding scientific research by tax dollars aimed at manipulating the public. It's not like a carbon-credit market props itself up, right?
  - sprout 16y ago
    I read the emails that supposedly show fraud. There's nothing indicative that it's systemic. Furthermore, the 'ClimateGate' emails only barely show fraud. No, I haven't read them all, but every source I saw pointed to the same exact 'trick' emails, and no one could show anything dirty in the rest.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Money has very little importance to people who advocate for reductions in fossil fuels... Money has a great deal of importance to a scientist wishing to study forests and natural, untouched wilderness. It has even more importance to a scientist who wants to build a supercomputer to simulate (over)simplified models of the atmosphere and ocean. As for Lewis, I suspect he loves the scientific method. Find data, generate hypothesis, expose your methods to everyone and pray that you spotted all the flaws in your argument/analysis. He expresses anger that this process has been subverted and the APS is trying to ignore it.
  - borism 16y ago
    >Money has a great deal of importance to a scientist wishing to study forests and natural, untouched wilderness. It has even more importance to a scientist who wants to build a supercomputer to simulate (over)simplified models of the atmosphere and ocean. It has far more importance (and much more zeroes!) to a scientist who conducts studies on behalf of Energy Industry or for Corporations in said industry. >As for Lewis, I suspect he loves the scientific method. Find data, generate hypothesis, expose your methods to everyone and pray that you spotted all the flaws in your argument/analysis. He expresses anger that this process has been subverted and the APS is trying to ignore it. Well, I guess the only option in that case is to proceed with his own independent study? >scientist who wants to build a supercomputer to simulate (over)simplified models of the atmosphere and ocean So we shall conduct experiments only when we have complete model for everything?
- tlb 16y ago
  There are two ways of reducing fossil fuel consumption: reduce demand and reduce supply. Reducing supply (by preventing drilling new wells, embargoing oil producers and bombing foreign oil wells) is currently ahead, thus the price has risen from $30ish to $80ish / bbl. Owners of existing wells have made a huge windfall. It would be surprising if they weren't heavily interested in further supply reductions.
zdw 16y ago
money trail !always = scientific fraud But it sometimes does - see, for example, the debunked "vaccines cause autism" research that was promoted by lawyers trying to get rich. With climate change, there's plenty of money on both sides, thus probably some malfeasance going on in both camps, but the consensus is definitely for it existing: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/ http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-... If that's not convincing, the US military is convinced of it, and is already looking into the political/military effects of climate change - they're not known to be a particularly progressive organization...
- lzw 16y ago
  The US military has experimented with LSD, psychic phenomena and for a period of time "Believed" in UFOs. The "vaccines cause autism" is another political issue where pseudo science is being used to argue for government dictating medical choices to families. The "Debunkings" I've seen have been political nonsense. I don't take a position either way on whether vaccines can cause autism. Just that the constant propaganda on this issue is a form of a political witch hunt that has nothing to do with science.
  - tbrownaw 16y ago
    > The "vaccines cause autism" is another political issue where pseudo science is being used to argue for government dictating medical choices to families. The "Debunkings" I've seen have been political nonsense. Um, what? I thought the research showing a link was actually fraudulent (as in the guy took money to make shit up): http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/12850 http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/12850 . Even if his misconduct wasn't quite that bad, the paper was still bad enough that it got retracted by the journal that originally published it: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/the-lancet-retracts-paper-linking-mmr-vaccines-and-autism.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/the-lancet-retra... . > I don't take a position either way on whether vaccines can cause autism. Just that the constant propaganda on this issue is a form of a political witch hunt that has nothing to do with science. My understanding is that there was one paper (now retracted) claiming a possible link, followed by the author telling the press there was a link, followed by (1) many papers disproving any link and (2) lots of "OMG PANIC" news stories and celebrities telling people to do stupid shit.
jacquesm 16y ago
Cue the global warming conspiracy theorists to spin this far and wide. What makes it interesting is that to me there really can't be a global warming scam, it either is real, or it is not, we may be able to do something about it, or it may turn out we're along for the ride. But which ever of those is the case it is not going to hurt us one bit to know. Writing it all off as a scam is going way too fast, some people have been messing with the data, that much has been established but we are nowhere near the point where the whole thing should be written off. edit: would the downmodders be so kind as to explain which part of the above was the reason for the moderation?
- roberts_vc 16y ago
  "Cue the global warming conspiracy theorists to spin this far and wide." My first thought too. A GW Denialist - couldn't care less what he has to say, he obviously doesn't have the sense to stay outta the rain.
  - pdonis 16y ago
    I'm not sure where you're getting "denialist" from his article. He doesn't say anything about whether there is or isn't global warming, or whether humans are or are not causing at least a portion of it. His charge is that the APS, instead of fostering open debate, is stifling it. I do think he's too preoccupied with money as a motivation for why the stifling is being done; but his primary charge is basically that scientists aren't doing their due diligence the way they used to: "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...How different it is now." When I read the IPCC reports, for example, I find it hard to disagree with this assessment; even before ClimateGate we had plenty of evidence that what went into those reports was largely politically, not scientifically, determined. Note that this does not mean the IPCC reports are entirely wrong, nor does it mean that global warming will not be a problem. It means the reports don't make a good enough case for, say, emasculating the entire world economy in order to maybe, possibly, reduce the global temperature rise over the next century by a fraction of a degree Celsius.
GnarfGnarf 16y ago
Fatal error: Out of memory (allocated 1572864) (tried to allocate 4864 bytes) in /home/thegwpf/public_html/libraries/joomla/html/parameter.php on line 146 Fatal error: Class declarations may not be nested in /home/thegwpf/public_html/libraries/joomla/error/exception.php on line 25 WTF!!
dmfdmf 16y ago
Wow
mootothemax 16y ago
Are there any good links that give a fair and balanced* view of both sides? I realise that I could be asking for the impossible here, but for example, I'm finding it difficult to find a view against climate change that doesn't irritate me by mentioning mediaeval temperature logs and yet criticise the modern temperature logs for accuracy. *TM News International
- danielharan 16y ago
  There aren't two sides of this. The vast majority of scientists that know what's going on are terrified. A few, many paid by the same lobby organizations that backed FUD on cigarette smoking, are creating a "debate". Only one credible climatologists is vehemently disagreeing with the consensus. By the time we know who was right, it'll be too late. The science of greenhouse gases was figured out in the 19th century. Given how much we're spewing into the atmosphere, critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records. Merely pointing out that models aren't perfect predictors, or that some esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming does nothing useful to help us decide how to act.
  - nkurz 16y ago
    Daniel --- Your statements create the implication that the Hal Lewis, the author of this piece, is being paid by someone to intentionally spread misinformation. Is this a misreading? For while he may be scientifically wrong, I wouldn't make this accusation lightly. According to the article the last straw for him, was that he obtained 200 signatures from members of the APS (all scientists) asking for the creation of a group to look at Climate Science. These 200 presumably thought there was room or need for debate. Given your "few"/"many" construction, I have to wonder: how many of these were being paid off and by whom?
    - danielharan 16y ago
      Is he a climatologist?
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Side note: one of the most awesome parts about getting old is that you can say exactly how you feel about things. I found parts of his letter undiplomatic (to say the least), but I also felt I was actually sitting down and talking to the guy. That type of honest forthrightness (and not contrived outrage or sliming people for political reasons) isn't seen very much. Agree or disagree, I am able to empathize with the author.
gmlk 16y ago
FREEMAN DYSON wrote a very good article about the need for heretics in science A quote: "I would like to ask two questions. First, if the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet? Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second. It says that the warm climate of six thousand years ago with the wet Sahara is to be preferred, and that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may help to bring it back. I am not saying that this heresy is true. I am only saying that it will not do us any harm to think about it." http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
- tbrownaw 16y ago
  Besides the Sahara, shouldn't Canada, Alaska, Siberia, and maybe even parts of Antarctica become habitable?
  - drallison 16y ago
    Perhaps, but the real problem is the rate of change of climate. In the time scale it takes for the ecosystem to adapt, global warming is instantaneous and, hence, disruptive. Evolution and adaption are powerful but slow mechanisms.
    - tbrownaw 16y ago
      We've had bacteria that can digest nylon production byproducts since 40 years after nylon was invented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria . After 20 years of observing E. Coli in a medium that had lots of citrate, one (of twelve) population became able to digest citrate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_exp... . There were only about 400 years between the Medieval Warm Period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period and the Little Ice Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age , but Europe still has a perfectly good ecosystem. The finches on the Galapagos Islands have been observed closely over a long period, and seen to change from year to year in response to climate (and therefore food supply) variations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Rosemary_Grant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Rosemary_Grant . I think you're seriously overestimating the time needed for ecosystems to adapt, and for lineages of organisms to change significantly.
lzw 16y ago
Since this is a global warming related topic, we're seeing the very common global warming debate. I've a few points to make in defense of this ex-member of APS, and in response to the arguments that are so commonly presented for AGW. Science does not operate by consensus. The consensus of scientists for many decades was that the earth was flat. as we well know, the earth is not flat. (But if you want to argue that the earth is, in fact flat, I'm willing to hear your arguments. What's the worst that could happen? I could be amused. But if I've been tricked by the Round Earth Scam then I'd want to know. It is silly to say it is beyond discussion simply because most people believe the earth is round.) When I worked for a national lab I would, for amusements sake, take the position that Einstein was wrong, and I would argue against general relativity. I did this with Professors, Post Docs, both theoretical and empirical and a variety of people much smarter and better informed than me. This was educational and a good exercise. While I may have irritated them on occasions, and while general relativity is about as close as you get to "settled science", never once was the argument given to me that this was a correct theory based on the "consensus of scientists". If you're arguing for a scientific position and you're using "preponderance of the evidence" in lawyer speak to make your position, you're not actually taking the scientific position, you are taking an anti-science position. The preponderance of the evidence will always fit a conventional view, and the advancement of science comes from finding something that does not fit the conventional view. This is what careers are (or were, apparently) made on. So, the argument that this is "settled" and therefore is not worth debating and that anyone who doesn't subscribe to this theory is irrational, is a very profoundly anti-science perspective. It is also the defacto position and has been since I first heard of global warming. How can a scientific movement start out by presupposing its own conclusions as fact? Further, if you do not wish to spend the time reading papers, or investigating the matter at a deep level, do not advocate for a position on the internet. This kind of advocation is the worst combination of politics and science. You're arguing for a scientific conclusion based on your political ideology, not based on science. (Which is why preponderance of evidence is convenient - it is an attempt to short circuit debate so you don't have to debate the scientific points.) AGW is easily disproven with straightforward observations (not to mention a mountain of peer reviewed papers to the contrary, none of which can be effectively debated in this forum.) The easy disproof of AGW is: 1. The earth is getting colder, not warmer, while CO2 levels continue to rise. 2. Historically the earth has mostly been much colder and if you want to find a warming trend you will find the one since the last ice age, which has happened after every ice age. 3. During the period where the planet was getting warmer in the recent past, coinciding with the solar cycle, mars got warmer as well, yet mars has no humans on it. 4. The climate gate emails reveal deliberate distortion of the numbers by adding a "fudge factor" which accounts for essentially all the warming shown in that "baseline" data. 5. The only papers showing warming on a global scale are showing the results of computer models that do not have predictive value if you apply past data, thus they are predicated on the assumption that some major change in the global climate has been reached, with no historical precedent. EG: the models are not actually models. 6. The planet has experienced several periods that were much warmer and had much higher CO2. While CO2 and warming are correlated, the CO2 levels tend to come after the warming, not before. This whole thing could be called a correlation-causation error if it weren't being pushed so adamantly in the face of scientific disproof. 7. The AGW movement is a political movement, primarily centered around Al Gore and the IPCC Neither of which are scientific. The IPCC rewrote the statements of the scientists who contributed to the report because it felt they were not declarative enough. The motive here is pretty obvious, as if AGW were accepted, government would gain massive power to regulate the global economy and people everywhere, as has already been demonstrated by such travesties of economics and justice as "Cap and Trade". 8. When Al Gore started to harp on this issue it was a legitimate concern as he portrays in his movie, after meeting a UCSD professor who told him the theory. A decade later, in the 1980s the UCSD professor discovered his theory was wrong, and being a man of integrity, published his findings. Al Gore, being a man of no integrity continues to pretend like he didn't. 9. The IR absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a significant impact on the planet and not able to cause a "Greenhouse" effect. CO2 in the atmosphere is a tiny fraction of a percent. IT is vastly outweighed by water vapor which has much more significant IR absorption and thus is the source of essentially all possible greenhouse effect. But Clouds are not something humans can control,and therefore, the AGW proponents focus on CO2. 10. AGW theory is based on the idea of some magical tipping point after which the effect will become run-away and beyond our control. The fear being spread is argued on this basis. However in the past, CO2 has been higher than it is today, and in fact has been dramatically higher than it is today, with no runaway effect. (Further, the planet has been much warmer than it is today, warmer than even the worst case scenarios being projected, and still went into subsequent ice ages.) 11. Numerous, possibly, every place where we should see this warming showing up, we are not. However, if you google for any of these you can find them used as evidence of warming, by either adding fudge factors or selectively citing data and ignoring the data that shows cooling. This shows a consistent and persistent fraud being perpetrated arguing for AGW, at least in the blogosphere. (Not going to make the allegation against scientists, I believe they are being honest, but they are working with fabricated baseline data that was at the center of climate-gate.) I'm not going to cite any papers here because scientific reality does not come nicely summed up in a single paper making a specific point. Many of my claims are easily verifiable. eg: "As of April 2010, carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 391 ppm by volume." You can quibble with my words in the above statements and it is quite possible I spoke over broadly once or twice. But you can't change these basic facts about the situation. I know there are blog posts from non-scientists who "debunk" probably every thing stated above. If all you need to believe in something is for someone on the internet to have written a rationalization, no matter how ignorant or dishonest, then there is no convincing you against AGW. But it really doesn't matter, even if you reject every one of my points. Science is not about consensus. Science is not about downvoting people who dare to point out facts not consistent with the popular theory. Science is about applying the scientific method and following the data wherever it leads, not only if it follows a political agenda, or your source of fundings political agenda. IF you downvote me, do so knowing that you cannot claim that I have not made an argument, have not contributed to this discussion, and have not presented evidence defending my position. I have done all three. Realize you are downvoting me because you do not like the conclusion I reached. Science should not be about removing funding from people who discover inconvenient truths that go agains the political winds. Hacker news should not be about burying people who fail to march in lock step with popular opinion.
araneae 16y ago
Personally the global warming thing kind of fries my brain. I'm an ecologist by training, but there are so many papers there that it's impossible for me to make a good decision about it. On a scientific level, I find myself screwed. I'm inclined to trust scientists because I am one, but I'm disinclined to trust the establishment because I'm a libertarian. So no help for me there. On a loyalty level, I am screwed. However, this is my rationalization for doing nothing about global warming (the position of the agnostic): The amount of co2 in the upper atmosphere is increasing at amazing rate (280 ppm pre-industrially to 388 ppm, current); this is a fact. All the proposed legislation would have a completely negligible effect on this. In order to really stop global warming, not just slow it down, we would need all nations to completely stop co2 production. That isn't going to happen. So if global warming is real, our paltry policy is going to do nothing to stop it. So why bother? Anyway, just to emphasize, this is my rationalization. It's just something to make me feel better for being unable to grasp the topic scientifically.
- lzw 16y ago
  As a libertarian, you might find it useful to consider some meta evidence. Those supporting global warming and who have been pushing for this are generally politicians such as Al Gore and the IPCC. Those opposing it are generally business interests, presumably the oil producers if the pro-AGW people are correct. Businesses make their money by keeping their employees, their customers and their shareholders happy. Looking at the history of pollution from a geographic perspective on a global basis, the worst polluters are generally governments and countries where there is low standard of living or slower economic growth due to un-libertarian political government. Richer, free-er societies tend to have less pollution. Anyway, contrary to businesses government operates by edict and uses force to ensure compliance. Corporations can only plead or incentivize, governments can force. But in order to avoid rebellion, governments must make their subjects believe that they are being force to "do the right thing". In every area of life where there is government you can find propaganda saying that government control is the right thing. The Global Warming movement originated with government, government controls the purse strings and refuses to fund people who find evidence that does not support the political position, and thus this is simply a case of governments doing the propaganda thing to be able to pass laws that give them extraordinary control over their economies. Since reading all the papers is admittedly a non-trivial affair, consider the motives of the groups.
ErrantX 16y ago
He's clearly very angry, I don't exactly blame him either. The problem with the "climate change debate" is that it is a) political and b) full of bad science. The actual problem, of course, is that the bad science and the political happen, in this case, to agree. To those decrying his strong assertions of fraud, I agree there is a little too much hyperbole in his resignation. However I think he is absolutely right that the money is skewing the science, as much as the politics. What the scientists don't seem to understand is that a politician probably doesn't really care what happens in the future (so long as it does not happen in his/her lifetime) they are more interested in the political advantage it is offering. This is the same for pretty much any wide-scale "popular" crisis that occurs (e.g. the bird flu "pandemic"). And, so, we are in this weird situation where a very serious issue is facing us (well, facing us in a few generations) but most of the work seems to relate to arguing, using it to political advantage and scaring the public. Rather than actually doing anything very much. And the public have absolutely no idea what to believe, expect or do (except for some vague notion that maybe they should invest in a solar panel). The media have been handed the words "a scientific consensus" which confuses people even more, and means absolutely nothing. The media and the politicos have spun the whole thing into a mess of fear in the populace; who has this sense that there is a major urgency and we should be panicking. When clearly, that is a silly response. The truth, sadly, is that nothing is at all clear at this point, apart from the fact we are seeing some form of, probably quite significant, climate change some portion of which is out fault. And only a developing sense of what to do about it and what it will lead to (environment wise). Anyone who claims to be able to predict the outcome, from this point on, with any degree of certainty I am quite happy to call a fraud. Ditto for anyone that claims conclusively to have shown the extent to which we are contributing. We end up with two polarized camps; the "global-warmists" and the "deniers". And we are all supposed to take a side, choose our weapons and go for the throat. Which in itself detracts from sensible, logical ideas like self-sufficiency, less consumerism, clean energy, sustainable environments etc. (because they become part of the whole debate and no longer just a neat thing we could/should all do). This makes me very cross (can you tell), but I have given up waffling about it too much (this post excluded) and simply invest in my own sustainability and remain healthily sceptical about any new GW science.
- lzw 16y ago
drallison 16y ago
For people interested in the background of this letter of resignation, you might want to read this paper. The deniers of global warming are a small, well organized, and well funded group with interesting political and social connections. http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/ http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman... is the one-page abstract. It points at 2 PDFs: a 6-pager that has a a ToC, Executive Summary, background, and guide to reading the rest; and a 250-page Report, of which that is the first 6 pages. (The main discussion is about 25 pages, then backed by 200+ pages of appendices.)
zeynel1 16y ago
From the resignation letter: "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." Physics is a corrupt professions. http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/he-who-pays-physics-gets-to-define-the-world/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/he-who-pays-physics... I am glad that Prof. Lewis came out with this public exposure of the corruption of physics. This is very important. This is independent of climate issue. The most corruption occurs in academic physics.
mark_l_watson 16y ago
Hal is an old family friend - a good guy. I have known him since I was an infant. I also happened to take a physics class from him in 1969 and even back then he was warning about energy problems, etc.
jonhendry 16y ago
Another case of "Aging scientist turns into a crank". See also: Linus Pauling, Freeman Dyson, James Watson, etc.

53 points by jackfoxy 16y ago

>I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends. This guy has a lot of gall to end with that after making such flimsy allegations of fraud against an entire academic discipline. His hyperbolic screeching about the "flood of money" would better be directed at the oil industry. That's not to say the climate change crowd is without its biases, but if he honestly thinks that they are intentionally committing fraud for love of money and prestige, he is deluded. Personally, I think that the people he slanders are acting honestly, but I might present a more modest hypothesis: The people who do research on the climate and on the environment have a dramatic love of forests and lakes and natural, untouched wilderness. Anyone who stands in the midst of the mountains cannot help but see why this is. These people might even be willing to lie to protect them. Money, I assure you, has nothing to do with it. But unfailing love of the natural world? Sure, there are people who would lie without hesitation to protect that. But money? Money has very little importance to people who advocate for reductions in fossil fuels, and I think Hal Lewis' focus on money shows how little he understands the people he maligns. I don't include myself among them because I am no such researcher, but I share their values, their love of the wild things. Lewis, I'm not entirely sure what he loves. I find it difficult to believe he's really interested in science. I can't believe a rationalist would look at any of the evidence available and be so convinced of fraud.

hugh3 16y ago
He makes some good points, but probably goes too far when he starts impugning the motives of others. The APS shouldn't have dashed off such a dodgy statement about climate change without better consultation with its thousands of members (including me). And the word "incontrovertible" is too strong for just about anything in science, and shouldn't have been used.
- smokeyj 16y ago
  Debate is being intentionally suppressed, data is intentionally being manipulated and obscured, sources of information go missing, trillions of dollars are being poured in by Governments to influence the outcome, and outcomes are being declared by stacked committees. Call it what you want, just don't call it science.
  - whyenot 16y ago
    If you're going to throw grenades like this please also provide some specific citations that back up your position. Otherwise, it's difficult to take you seriously.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Sources of information going missing (article written before climategate): http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228291/dog-ate-global-warming/patrick-j-michaels http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228291/dog-ate-global... (Sometime before this occurred, Mann sent emails saying they would delete data rather than respond to a FOIA request. A FOIA request occurred.) As for suppression of debate, this APS episode is just one example of many.
  - danielharan 16y ago
    Trillions? A wee bit of hyperbole, no?
    - borism 16y ago
      yes it is
  - jonhendry 16y ago
    Trillions? When was the last time you saw a climate science postdoc driving a Maybach?
    - jonhendry 16y ago
smokeyj 16y ago
"but if he honestly thinks that they are intentionally committing fraud for love of money and prestige, he is deluded." It's official, sprout, the non-researcher thinks that an American Physical Society of sixty-seven years is wrong simply 'because'. Without reading the emails of climategate, sprout leads us to the truth intrinsic to himself only. Floods of money are directed to "the oil industry", often times by customers. Money is flooding scientific research by tax dollars aimed at manipulating the public. It's not like a carbon-credit market props itself up, right?
- sprout 16y ago
  I read the emails that supposedly show fraud. There's nothing indicative that it's systemic. Furthermore, the 'ClimateGate' emails only barely show fraud. No, I haven't read them all, but every source I saw pointed to the same exact 'trick' emails, and no one could show anything dirty in the rest.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Money has very little importance to people who advocate for reductions in fossil fuels... Money has a great deal of importance to a scientist wishing to study forests and natural, untouched wilderness. It has even more importance to a scientist who wants to build a supercomputer to simulate (over)simplified models of the atmosphere and ocean. As for Lewis, I suspect he loves the scientific method. Find data, generate hypothesis, expose your methods to everyone and pray that you spotted all the flaws in your argument/analysis. He expresses anger that this process has been subverted and the APS is trying to ignore it.
- borism 16y ago
  >Money has a great deal of importance to a scientist wishing to study forests and natural, untouched wilderness. It has even more importance to a scientist who wants to build a supercomputer to simulate (over)simplified models of the atmosphere and ocean. It has far more importance (and much more zeroes!) to a scientist who conducts studies on behalf of Energy Industry or for Corporations in said industry. >As for Lewis, I suspect he loves the scientific method. Find data, generate hypothesis, expose your methods to everyone and pray that you spotted all the flaws in your argument/analysis. He expresses anger that this process has been subverted and the APS is trying to ignore it. Well, I guess the only option in that case is to proceed with his own independent study? >scientist who wants to build a supercomputer to simulate (over)simplified models of the atmosphere and ocean So we shall conduct experiments only when we have complete model for everything?
tlb 16y ago
There are two ways of reducing fossil fuel consumption: reduce demand and reduce supply. Reducing supply (by preventing drilling new wells, embargoing oil producers and bombing foreign oil wells) is currently ahead, thus the price has risen from $30ish to $80ish / bbl. Owners of existing wells have made a huge windfall. It would be surprising if they weren't heavily interested in further supply reductions.

zdw 16y ago

money trail !always = scientific fraud But it sometimes does - see, for example, the debunked "vaccines cause autism" research that was promoted by lawyers trying to get rich. With climate change, there's plenty of money on both sides, thus probably some malfeasance going on in both camps, but the consensus is definitely for it existing: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/ http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-... If that's not convincing, the US military is convinced of it, and is already looking into the political/military effects of climate change - they're not known to be a particularly progressive organization...

lzw 16y ago
The US military has experimented with LSD, psychic phenomena and for a period of time "Believed" in UFOs. The "vaccines cause autism" is another political issue where pseudo science is being used to argue for government dictating medical choices to families. The "Debunkings" I've seen have been political nonsense. I don't take a position either way on whether vaccines can cause autism. Just that the constant propaganda on this issue is a form of a political witch hunt that has nothing to do with science.
- tbrownaw 16y ago
  > The "vaccines cause autism" is another political issue where pseudo science is being used to argue for government dictating medical choices to families. The "Debunkings" I've seen have been political nonsense. Um, what? I thought the research showing a link was actually fraudulent (as in the guy took money to make shit up): http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/12850 http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/12850 . Even if his misconduct wasn't quite that bad, the paper was still bad enough that it got retracted by the journal that originally published it: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/the-lancet-retracts-paper-linking-mmr-vaccines-and-autism.ars http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/the-lancet-retra... . > I don't take a position either way on whether vaccines can cause autism. Just that the constant propaganda on this issue is a form of a political witch hunt that has nothing to do with science. My understanding is that there was one paper (now retracted) claiming a possible link, followed by the author telling the press there was a link, followed by (1) many papers disproving any link and (2) lots of "OMG PANIC" news stories and celebrities telling people to do stupid shit.

jacquesm 16y ago

Cue the global warming conspiracy theorists to spin this far and wide. What makes it interesting is that to me there really can't be a global warming scam, it either is real, or it is not, we may be able to do something about it, or it may turn out we're along for the ride. But which ever of those is the case it is not going to hurt us one bit to know. Writing it all off as a scam is going way too fast, some people have been messing with the data, that much has been established but we are nowhere near the point where the whole thing should be written off. edit: would the downmodders be so kind as to explain which part of the above was the reason for the moderation?

roberts_vc 16y ago
"Cue the global warming conspiracy theorists to spin this far and wide." My first thought too. A GW Denialist - couldn't care less what he has to say, he obviously doesn't have the sense to stay outta the rain.
- pdonis 16y ago
  I'm not sure where you're getting "denialist" from his article. He doesn't say anything about whether there is or isn't global warming, or whether humans are or are not causing at least a portion of it. His charge is that the APS, instead of fostering open debate, is stifling it. I do think he's too preoccupied with money as a motivation for why the stifling is being done; but his primary charge is basically that scientists aren't doing their due diligence the way they used to: "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...How different it is now." When I read the IPCC reports, for example, I find it hard to disagree with this assessment; even before ClimateGate we had plenty of evidence that what went into those reports was largely politically, not scientifically, determined. Note that this does not mean the IPCC reports are entirely wrong, nor does it mean that global warming will not be a problem. It means the reports don't make a good enough case for, say, emasculating the entire world economy in order to maybe, possibly, reduce the global temperature rise over the next century by a fraction of a degree Celsius.

GnarfGnarf 16y ago

Fatal error: Out of memory (allocated 1572864) (tried to allocate 4864 bytes) in /home/thegwpf/public_html/libraries/joomla/html/parameter.php on line 146 Fatal error: Class declarations may not be nested in /home/thegwpf/public_html/libraries/joomla/error/exception.php on line 25 WTF!!

dmfdmf 16y ago

Wow

mootothemax 16y ago

Are there any good links that give a fair and balanced* view of both sides? I realise that I could be asking for the impossible here, but for example, I'm finding it difficult to find a view against climate change that doesn't irritate me by mentioning mediaeval temperature logs and yet criticise the modern temperature logs for accuracy. *TM News International

danielharan 16y ago
There aren't two sides of this. The vast majority of scientists that know what's going on are terrified. A few, many paid by the same lobby organizations that backed FUD on cigarette smoking, are creating a "debate". Only one credible climatologists is vehemently disagreeing with the consensus. By the time we know who was right, it'll be too late. The science of greenhouse gases was figured out in the 19th century. Given how much we're spewing into the atmosphere, critics should be proving that something else is causing the recent heat records. Merely pointing out that models aren't perfect predictors, or that some esoteric and uncontrollable phenomenon is responsible for some of the warming does nothing useful to help us decide how to act.
- nkurz 16y ago
  Daniel --- Your statements create the implication that the Hal Lewis, the author of this piece, is being paid by someone to intentionally spread misinformation. Is this a misreading? For while he may be scientifically wrong, I wouldn't make this accusation lightly. According to the article the last straw for him, was that he obtained 200 signatures from members of the APS (all scientists) asking for the creation of a group to look at Climate Science. These 200 presumably thought there was room or need for debate. Given your "few"/"many" construction, I have to wonder: how many of these were being paid off and by whom?
  - danielharan 16y ago
    Is he a climatologist?

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Side note: one of the most awesome parts about getting old is that you can say exactly how you feel about things. I found parts of his letter undiplomatic (to say the least), but I also felt I was actually sitting down and talking to the guy. That type of honest forthrightness (and not contrived outrage or sliming people for political reasons) isn't seen very much. Agree or disagree, I am able to empathize with the author.

gmlk 16y ago

FREEMAN DYSON wrote a very good article about the need for heretics in science A quote: "I would like to ask two questions. First, if the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet? Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second. It says that the warm climate of six thousand years ago with the wet Sahara is to be preferred, and that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may help to bring it back. I am not saying that this heresy is true. I am only saying that it will not do us any harm to think about it." http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

tbrownaw 16y ago
Besides the Sahara, shouldn't Canada, Alaska, Siberia, and maybe even parts of Antarctica become habitable?
- drallison 16y ago
  Perhaps, but the real problem is the rate of change of climate. In the time scale it takes for the ecosystem to adapt, global warming is instantaneous and, hence, disruptive. Evolution and adaption are powerful but slow mechanisms.
  - tbrownaw 16y ago
    We've had bacteria that can digest nylon production byproducts since 40 years after nylon was invented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria . After 20 years of observing E. Coli in a medium that had lots of citrate, one (of twelve) population became able to digest citrate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_exp... . There were only about 400 years between the Medieval Warm Period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period and the Little Ice Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age , but Europe still has a perfectly good ecosystem. The finches on the Galapagos Islands have been observed closely over a long period, and seen to change from year to year in response to climate (and therefore food supply) variations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Rosemary_Grant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Rosemary_Grant . I think you're seriously overestimating the time needed for ecosystems to adapt, and for lineages of organisms to change significantly.

lzw 16y ago

Since this is a global warming related topic, we're seeing the very common global warming debate. I've a few points to make in defense of this ex-member of APS, and in response to the arguments that are so commonly presented for AGW. Science does not operate by consensus. The consensus of scientists for many decades was that the earth was flat. as we well know, the earth is not flat. (But if you want to argue that the earth is, in fact flat, I'm willing to hear your arguments. What's the worst that could happen? I could be amused. But if I've been tricked by the Round Earth Scam then I'd want to know. It is silly to say it is beyond discussion simply because most people believe the earth is round.) When I worked for a national lab I would, for amusements sake, take the position that Einstein was wrong, and I would argue against general relativity. I did this with Professors, Post Docs, both theoretical and empirical and a variety of people much smarter and better informed than me. This was educational and a good exercise. While I may have irritated them on occasions, and while general relativity is about as close as you get to "settled science", never once was the argument given to me that this was a correct theory based on the "consensus of scientists". If you're arguing for a scientific position and you're using "preponderance of the evidence" in lawyer speak to make your position, you're not actually taking the scientific position, you are taking an anti-science position. The preponderance of the evidence will always fit a conventional view, and the advancement of science comes from finding something that does not fit the conventional view. This is what careers are (or were, apparently) made on. So, the argument that this is "settled" and therefore is not worth debating and that anyone who doesn't subscribe to this theory is irrational, is a very profoundly anti-science perspective. It is also the defacto position and has been since I first heard of global warming. How can a scientific movement start out by presupposing its own conclusions as fact? Further, if you do not wish to spend the time reading papers, or investigating the matter at a deep level, do not advocate for a position on the internet. This kind of advocation is the worst combination of politics and science. You're arguing for a scientific conclusion based on your political ideology, not based on science. (Which is why preponderance of evidence is convenient - it is an attempt to short circuit debate so you don't have to debate the scientific points.) AGW is easily disproven with straightforward observations (not to mention a mountain of peer reviewed papers to the contrary, none of which can be effectively debated in this forum.) The easy disproof of AGW is: 1. The earth is getting colder, not warmer, while CO2 levels continue to rise. 2. Historically the earth has mostly been much colder and if you want to find a warming trend you will find the one since the last ice age, which has happened after every ice age. 3. During the period where the planet was getting warmer in the recent past, coinciding with the solar cycle, mars got warmer as well, yet mars has no humans on it. 4. The climate gate emails reveal deliberate distortion of the numbers by adding a "fudge factor" which accounts for essentially all the warming shown in that "baseline" data. 5. The only papers showing warming on a global scale are showing the results of computer models that do not have predictive value if you apply past data, thus they are predicated on the assumption that some major change in the global climate has been reached, with no historical precedent. EG: the models are not actually models. 6. The planet has experienced several periods that were much warmer and had much higher CO2. While CO2 and warming are correlated, the CO2 levels tend to come after the warming, not before. This whole thing could be called a correlation-causation error if it weren't being pushed so adamantly in the face of scientific disproof. 7. The AGW movement is a political movement, primarily centered around Al Gore and the IPCC Neither of which are scientific. The IPCC rewrote the statements of the scientists who contributed to the report because it felt they were not declarative enough. The motive here is pretty obvious, as if AGW were accepted, government would gain massive power to regulate the global economy and people everywhere, as has already been demonstrated by such travesties of economics and justice as "Cap and Trade". 8. When Al Gore started to harp on this issue it was a legitimate concern as he portrays in his movie, after meeting a UCSD professor who told him the theory. A decade later, in the 1980s the UCSD professor discovered his theory was wrong, and being a man of integrity, published his findings. Al Gore, being a man of no integrity continues to pretend like he didn't. 9. The IR absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a significant impact on the planet and not able to cause a "Greenhouse" effect. CO2 in the atmosphere is a tiny fraction of a percent. IT is vastly outweighed by water vapor which has much more significant IR absorption and thus is the source of essentially all possible greenhouse effect. But Clouds are not something humans can control,and therefore, the AGW proponents focus on CO2. 10. AGW theory is based on the idea of some magical tipping point after which the effect will become run-away and beyond our control. The fear being spread is argued on this basis. However in the past, CO2 has been higher than it is today, and in fact has been dramatically higher than it is today, with no runaway effect. (Further, the planet has been much warmer than it is today, warmer than even the worst case scenarios being projected, and still went into subsequent ice ages.) 11. Numerous, possibly, every place where we should see this warming showing up, we are not. However, if you google for any of these you can find them used as evidence of warming, by either adding fudge factors or selectively citing data and ignoring the data that shows cooling. This shows a consistent and persistent fraud being perpetrated arguing for AGW, at least in the blogosphere. (Not going to make the allegation against scientists, I believe they are being honest, but they are working with fabricated baseline data that was at the center of climate-gate.) I'm not going to cite any papers here because scientific reality does not come nicely summed up in a single paper making a specific point. Many of my claims are easily verifiable. eg: "As of April 2010, carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 391 ppm by volume." You can quibble with my words in the above statements and it is quite possible I spoke over broadly once or twice. But you can't change these basic facts about the situation. I know there are blog posts from non-scientists who "debunk" probably every thing stated above. If all you need to believe in something is for someone on the internet to have written a rationalization, no matter how ignorant or dishonest, then there is no convincing you against AGW. But it really doesn't matter, even if you reject every one of my points. Science is not about consensus. Science is not about downvoting people who dare to point out facts not consistent with the popular theory. Science is about applying the scientific method and following the data wherever it leads, not only if it follows a political agenda, or your source of fundings political agenda. IF you downvote me, do so knowing that you cannot claim that I have not made an argument, have not contributed to this discussion, and have not presented evidence defending my position. I have done all three. Realize you are downvoting me because you do not like the conclusion I reached. Science should not be about removing funding from people who discover inconvenient truths that go agains the political winds. Hacker news should not be about burying people who fail to march in lock step with popular opinion.

araneae 16y ago

Personally the global warming thing kind of fries my brain. I'm an ecologist by training, but there are so many papers there that it's impossible for me to make a good decision about it. On a scientific level, I find myself screwed. I'm inclined to trust scientists because I am one, but I'm disinclined to trust the establishment because I'm a libertarian. So no help for me there. On a loyalty level, I am screwed. However, this is my rationalization for doing nothing about global warming (the position of the agnostic): The amount of co2 in the upper atmosphere is increasing at amazing rate (280 ppm pre-industrially to 388 ppm, current); this is a fact. All the proposed legislation would have a completely negligible effect on this. In order to really stop global warming, not just slow it down, we would need all nations to completely stop co2 production. That isn't going to happen. So if global warming is real, our paltry policy is going to do nothing to stop it. So why bother? Anyway, just to emphasize, this is my rationalization. It's just something to make me feel better for being unable to grasp the topic scientifically.

lzw 16y ago
As a libertarian, you might find it useful to consider some meta evidence. Those supporting global warming and who have been pushing for this are generally politicians such as Al Gore and the IPCC. Those opposing it are generally business interests, presumably the oil producers if the pro-AGW people are correct. Businesses make their money by keeping their employees, their customers and their shareholders happy. Looking at the history of pollution from a geographic perspective on a global basis, the worst polluters are generally governments and countries where there is low standard of living or slower economic growth due to un-libertarian political government. Richer, free-er societies tend to have less pollution. Anyway, contrary to businesses government operates by edict and uses force to ensure compliance. Corporations can only plead or incentivize, governments can force. But in order to avoid rebellion, governments must make their subjects believe that they are being force to "do the right thing". In every area of life where there is government you can find propaganda saying that government control is the right thing. The Global Warming movement originated with government, government controls the purse strings and refuses to fund people who find evidence that does not support the political position, and thus this is simply a case of governments doing the propaganda thing to be able to pass laws that give them extraordinary control over their economies. Since reading all the papers is admittedly a non-trivial affair, consider the motives of the groups.

ErrantX 16y ago

He's clearly very angry, I don't exactly blame him either. The problem with the "climate change debate" is that it is a) political and b) full of bad science. The actual problem, of course, is that the bad science and the political happen, in this case, to agree. To those decrying his strong assertions of fraud, I agree there is a little too much hyperbole in his resignation. However I think he is absolutely right that the money is skewing the science, as much as the politics. What the scientists don't seem to understand is that a politician probably doesn't really care what happens in the future (so long as it does not happen in his/her lifetime) they are more interested in the political advantage it is offering. This is the same for pretty much any wide-scale "popular" crisis that occurs (e.g. the bird flu "pandemic"). And, so, we are in this weird situation where a very serious issue is facing us (well, facing us in a few generations) but most of the work seems to relate to arguing, using it to political advantage and scaring the public. Rather than actually doing anything very much. And the public have absolutely no idea what to believe, expect or do (except for some vague notion that maybe they should invest in a solar panel). The media have been handed the words "a scientific consensus" which confuses people even more, and means absolutely nothing. The media and the politicos have spun the whole thing into a mess of fear in the populace; who has this sense that there is a major urgency and we should be panicking. When clearly, that is a silly response. The truth, sadly, is that nothing is at all clear at this point, apart from the fact we are seeing some form of, probably quite significant, climate change some portion of which is out fault. And only a developing sense of what to do about it and what it will lead to (environment wise). Anyone who claims to be able to predict the outcome, from this point on, with any degree of certainty I am quite happy to call a fraud. Ditto for anyone that claims conclusively to have shown the extent to which we are contributing. We end up with two polarized camps; the "global-warmists" and the "deniers". And we are all supposed to take a side, choose our weapons and go for the throat. Which in itself detracts from sensible, logical ideas like self-sufficiency, less consumerism, clean energy, sustainable environments etc. (because they become part of the whole debate and no longer just a neat thing we could/should all do). This makes me very cross (can you tell), but I have given up waffling about it too much (this post excluded) and simply invest in my own sustainability and remain healthily sceptical about any new GW science.

lzw 16y ago

drallison 16y ago

For people interested in the background of this letter of resignation, you might want to read this paper. The deniers of global warming are a small, well organized, and well funded group with interesting political and social connections. http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/ http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman... is the one-page abstract. It points at 2 PDFs: a 6-pager that has a a ToC, Executive Summary, background, and guide to reading the rest; and a 250-page Report, of which that is the first 6 pages. (The main discussion is about 25 pages, then backed by 200+ pages of appendices.)

zeynel1 16y ago

From the resignation letter: "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." Physics is a corrupt professions. http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/he-who-pays-physics-gets-to-define-the-world/ http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/he-who-pays-physics... I am glad that Prof. Lewis came out with this public exposure of the corruption of physics. This is very important. This is independent of climate issue. The most corruption occurs in academic physics.

mark_l_watson 16y ago

Hal is an old family friend - a good guy. I have known him since I was an infant. I also happened to take a physics class from him in 1969 and even back then he was warning about energy problems, etc.

jonhendry 16y ago

Another case of "Aging scientist turns into a crank". See also: Linus Pauling, Freeman Dyson, James Watson, etc.