67 years of street cred - climate dood quits, sez its all a big load!

[chuckakers 426]

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence---it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind---simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[turtlespeed 226]

If this letter is actually genuine, it does seem to be pretty telling.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[skipbelt 0]

it's not global warming anymore , since the " consensus " is in full retreat . now it's global climate change , which is aka seasons changing . a much easier agenda to advance !

[rushmc 23]

Quote

it's not global warming anymore , since the " consensus " is in full retreat . now it's global climate change , which is aka seasons changing . a much easier agenda to advance !

cause ah


climate

changes?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

If this letter is actually genuine, it does seem to be pretty telling.

The letter is genuine. However the letter is written in such a way it hides some important facts about the pissing contest behind it.

The APS has roughly 47,000 members. Lewis is essentially pissed off because about 200 of them (a very large percentage of which are on oil company payrolls) weren't able to sufficiently bully their way into "reopening" a debate for which the vast majority of members have already made up their mind about.

It's essentially the kind of pissing contest we see in the USPA when a small but vocal minority decide it should be run one way and the other 99.5% of it says no. Then somebody gets huffy and writes a public letter of resignation as if that will actually change things.

Meh.

BTW, contrary to the subject line of this thread, Lewis isn't a "climate dood"; he's a "physics dood."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[1969912 0]

Quote

....about 200 of them (a very large percentage of which are on oil company payrolls)....

Please cite your source.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

....about 200 of them (a very large percentage of which are on oil company payrolls)....

Please cite your source.

Which are you doubting, the number 200 or the parenthetical about a large percentage being on oil company payrolls?

The signature are easily found here;
http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/Signatures__APS_Council_Study.html

The links to oil companies are a bit tougher, but if you go through them one by one and do a google search of each, it will become quite apparent.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[1969912 0]

I'm questioning your oil company payroll claim.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

I'm questioning your oil company payroll claim.

No, no, no. That's not the way it works. He can make the claim but it is your job to prove him wrong. If you don't do his "homework" for him then he wins by default. Get with the game.

Quote

Quade- The links to oil companies are a bit tougher, but if you go through them one by one and do a google search of each, it will become quite apparent.

He made the claim. Now it's your job to do his homework.






______________________________________________________________________________________________________
"1981 to 1988 is 7 years"-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend)

The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

....about 200 of them (a very large percentage of which are on oil company payrolls)....

Please cite your source.

Didn't you know? Any scientist that has come out against global warming is obviously on the vast, 23 million dollar payroll of Exxon-Mobil.

You should be pitying the poor, pro-global warming scientists laboring under the cost constraints of only 79 billion in research funding.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

....about 200 of them (a very large percentage of which are on oil company payrolls)....

Please cite your source.

Didn't you know? Any scientist that has come out against global warming is obviously on the vast, 23 million dollar payroll of Exxon-Mobil.

You should be pitying the poor, pro-global warming scientists laboring under the cost constraints of only 79 billion in research funding.

Do you suppose this would be enough money to get high on?

You know

enough so to twist your moral compas?


....gotta wonder....

For sure, it is enough to choke on

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

....about 200 of them (a very large percentage of which are on oil company payrolls)....

Please cite your source.

Didn't you know? Any scientist that has come out against global warming is obviously on the vast, 23 million dollar payroll of Exxon-Mobil.

You should be pitying the poor, pro-global warming scientists laboring under the cost constraints of only 79 billion in research funding.

Do you suppose this would be enough money to get high on?

You know

enough so to twist your moral compas?


....gotta wonder....

For sure, it is enough to choke on

And what is the price you sell your moral compass for daily???

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

....about 200 of them (a very large percentage of which are on oil company payrolls)....

Please cite your source.

Didn't you know? Any scientist that has come out against global warming is obviously on the vast, 23 million dollar payroll of Exxon-Mobil.

You should be pitying the poor, pro-global warming scientists laboring under the cost constraints of only 79 billion in research funding.

Do you suppose this would be enough money to get high on?

You know

enough so to twist your moral compas?


....gotta wonder....

For sure, it is enough to choke on

And what is the price you sell your moral compass for daily???

So says the queen of stereotyping

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NewGuy2005 53]

Quote

....It's essentially the kind of pissing contest we see in the USPA when a small but vocal minority decide it should be run one way and the other 99.5% of it says no. Then somebody gets huffy and writes a public letter of resignation as if that will actually change things.

So, those public letters are always wrong?

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

....It's essentially the kind of pissing contest we see in the USPA when a small but vocal minority decide it should be run one way and the other 99.5% of it says no. Then somebody gets huffy and writes a public letter of resignation as if that will actually change things.

So, those public letters are always wrong?

Nope, I'm saying that the vast majority of times they're sour grapes and don't mean a damn thing. The only real purpose they serve is to burn the bridge.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,120]

>Any scientist that has come out against global warming is obviously on
>the vast, 23 million dollar payroll of Exxon-Mobil.

Ah, yes. Won't someone pity the poor, starving, struggling BP's and Exxon's of the world, and help them stand up to the massive corporate power of . . . grad students and universities?

That line is getting less believable every time you use it. People can use Google, you know.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Any scientist that has come out against global warming is obviously on
>the vast, 23 million dollar payroll of Exxon-Mobil.

Ah, yes. Won't someone pity the poor, starving, struggling BP's and Exxon's of the world, and help them stand up to the massive corporate power government funding of . . . grad students and universities?

Fixed that for you.

Quote

That line is getting less believable every time you use it.

Only to the warmists.

Quote

People can use Google, you know.

Yes, I know - makes it easy to look up information like budgets for the CCSP, CCTP, USCGRP, etc...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

In your case Marc..... its not a sterotype. I was just pointing out that your job certainly seems to benefit from keeping the status quo.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iowa_and_coal

How is that going for you guys there????

Seems some people do not see those plants in QUITE the same way you might

Quote

oal Ash
The University of Iowa Power Plant, Iowa State University Power Plant, and the University of Northern Iowa Power Plant are among the state’s biggest producers of coal ash, a toxic byproduct of coal combustion. All three schools dispose of their ash in an unlined, unmonitored former quarry in Waterloo that received a waiver from the state in 2002, allowing it to use the ash as fill in its reclamation process.[5]

In July 2009, the University of Iowa and Iowa State vowed to look into their dumping procedures to ensure they did not pose a threat to public health, due to heavy metals and toxins in coal like arsenic, mercury, and boron, which can poison groundwater supplies. EPA reports note elevated cancer risks for those living near coal dump sites.[5]

In August 2009, assistant director of utilities at Iowa State Jeffrey Witt said the three universities spoke with the owner of the Waterloo quarry, BMC Aggregates (formerly Basic Materials Corp.) and determined that their coal ash disposal methods were safe.[5]

The EPA had announced in May 2009 that the agency was preparing regulations on how to handle ash from coal-fired power plants. Matt Hale, the EPA official, said coal ash may be reclassified as hazardous waste.[6] This would require federal monitoring standards for coal ash disposal sites like the Waterloo quarry.[5]

In September 2009, the universities announced they would begin a voluntary groundwater-monitoring program at their Waterloo quarry.[7]

Power companies
MidAmerican Energy, a division of Berkshire Hathaway
Headquarters in Des Moines, IA
27th biggest coal energy producer in U.S., if it was an independent company
Controls 10 coal-fired generating stations with 3421 MW capacity
Active proposals: Council Bluffs Energy Center Unit 4
Archer Daniels Midland
Central Iowa Power Cooperative
Interstate Power and Light, a division of Alliant Energy

Existing coal plants
Iowa is 16th in the nation in coal power generation, with 72 operating coal-fired power units at 28 locations totaling 6,492 megawatts (MW).[1][8]

Click on the locations shown on the Iowa map for plant details:


Map data ©2010 Google - Terms of Use50 mi100 kmMapSatelliteHybridTerrain

18 of these units are larger than 50MW.[9][10]

Archer Daniels Midland Cedar Rapids - 260MW - 1988, 1995, 2000
Burlington - 212MW - 1968
Council Bluffs - 856MW - 1954, 1958, 1978
George Neal North - 1046MW - 1964, 1972, 1975
George Neal South - 640MW - 1979
Lansing - 339MW - 1948, 1949, 1957, 1977
Louisa - 738MW - 1983
Muscatine - 294MW - 1958, 1969, 1983, 2000
Ottumwa - 726MW - 1981
Prairie Creek - 245MW - 1951, 1958, 1967, 1997
Riverside - 141MW - 1949, 1961
Sutherland - 157MW - 1955, 1961

Coal Ash Waste and Water Contamination
In August 2010 a study released by the Environmental Integrity Project, the Sierra Club and Earthjustice reported that Iowa, along with 34 states, had significant groundwater contamination from coal ash that was not recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report, in an attempt to pressure the EPA to regulate coal ash, noted that most states do not monitor drinking water contamination levels near waste disposal sites.[11] The report mentioned Iowa's George Neal Station South and George Neal Station North were two sites that have groundwater contamination due to coal ash waste.[12]


Major coal mines
As of March 2010, there are no major coal mines in Iowa. Historically, coal has been mined in 34 of Iowa's southern and central counties since the 1840s; an estimated 5,500 underground mines have operated in the state, and continue to effect the environment.[13]

[rushmc 23]

Every megawatt of wind power needs to have a matching megawatt of that consists of coal, gas, or nuke power.

This is a fact you cant change

Oh, and you warmists (thanks Mike, I like the label) love to point out exon funding

Who pray tell is funding these groups you list?

Funny shit though
Please keep posting

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skipbelt 0]

those glaciers that sprinted down from the arctic during the foretold ice age in the early 70's have beat a hasty retreat ! i really miss those glaciers . i used to love skydiving onto them in the 30 latitudes . there was such a strong consensus for the last ice age !

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]
Lewis is essentially pissed off because about 200 of them (a very large percentage of which are on oil company payrolls) weren't able to sufficiently bully their way into "reopening" a debate for which the vast majority of members have already made up their mind about.

[quade 4]

Quote

It's something far more dignitary than you would care to recognize...

Counselor, I don't even recognize that last sentence of yours being english.

"...far more dignitary..."? What were you trying to say?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skipbelt 0]

nefarious !

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

If this letter is actually genuine, it does seem to be pretty telling.

The letter is genuine. However the letter is written in such a way it hides some important facts about the pissing contest behind it.

The APS has roughly 47,000 members. Lewis is essentially pissed off because about 200 of them (a very large percentage of which are on oil company payrolls) weren't able to sufficiently bully their way into "reopening" a debate for which the vast majority of members have already made up their mind about.

It's essentially the kind of pissing contest we see in the USPA when a small but vocal minority decide it should be run one way and the other 99.5% of it says no. Then somebody gets huffy and writes a public letter of resignation as if that will actually change things.

Meh.

BTW, contrary to the subject line of this thread, Lewis isn't a "climate dood"; he's a "physics dood."

I spent what I would consider a moderate amount of time 20 minutes of so researching this and have not come to any site that confirm your above mentioned reasons.

Could you cite where that is being confirmed by their management?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

"Dignitary" used as an adjective. Not a noun.

By "dignitary" it means something affecting a person's or persons' fundamental dignities. The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is a dignitary right.

What professor Lewis was discussing was that the fundamental processes set up by the Constitution (and still in effect) are being ignored by the caprice of leadership. The protections provided for opposing views and neutrality are being discarded, and the viewpoints of certain members are being deemed subservient to the views of others. Further, a scientific organization is embarking on political advocacy and making statements that are demonstratively false. When someone points out, "that's not true" is is swept under the rug.

This is because the organixation has put forth a political position. As the professor stated, it has done so using words that are misleading or outright false. When questioned, the questioners are ignored.

The professor says, "there is a reason. I think it's money money money - science be damned."

His biggest issue is not that je disagrees, but that debate has been arbitrarily closed and dissent muted. The processes provided are being disregarded by the popular opinion and with a favoring of argument and opinion over facts and objective thought. A kangaroo court.

My wife is hotter than your wife.