An American Physicist’s Scathing Letter To Professional Group Over “Global Warming Fraud”


Image from Freedom Outpost

In the world of science, every now and then an honest member not blinded by the number of digits in a research grant surfaces.  Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is one such person.  He wrote a scathing letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr., of Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society, that is a must read for anyone with interest in the hoax and fraud that is Global Warming.

This writer will not go so far as to compare the letter to anything Martin Luther did with his 95 complaints that he didn’t know were already under discussion like Anthony Watts did, but the entire missive is eye opening.  It’s more like St. Catherine of Siena pounding on the pope’s desk and telling him to do his job.  (That actually happened.)

The entire letter can be read at the U.K. Telegraph, but for now, here are some highlights:

…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….

…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…

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….

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….

Professor Lewis’ complete letter is worth reading.  His insinuation that global warming is nothing but a scam perpetuated by cash is pretty much the reading so many of us have taken given the insane profits made by “green energy” companies – especially when cheaper, and more efficient ones are pushed out of the market.

So, there are some honest scientists out there.  Would more of them speak up.

About the Author

Cultural Limits

A resident of Flyover Country, Cultural Limits is a rare creature in American Conservatism – committed to not just small government, Christianity and traditional social roles, but non-profits and high arts and culture. Watching politics, observing human behavior and writing are all long-time interests.

In her other life, CL writes romance novels under her nom de plume, Patricia Holden (@PatriciaHoldenAuthor on Facebook), and crochets like a mad woman (designs can be found on Facebook @BohemianFlairCrochet and on Pinterest on the Bohemian Flair Crochet board).

In religion, CL is Catholic; in work, the jill of all trades when it comes to fundraising software manipulation and event planning; in play, a classically trained soprano and proud citizen of Cardinal Nation, although, during hockey season, Bleeds Blue. She lives in the Mid-Mississippi River Valley with family and two cute and charming tyrants…make that toy dogs.

2 Comments on "An American Physicist’s Scathing Letter To Professional Group Over “Global Warming Fraud”"

  1. Sugarsail1 | 06/13/2015 at 12:30 PM |

    The entire AGW hypothesis is really no more than conjecture since from a strict scientific methodology standpoint as it’s untestable. We can never empirically demonstrate what the earth’s climate would have done without mankind’s influence and so we cannot say based on empiricism what mankind’s influence on the climate ultimately is. What’s more is the “story” of global warming smacks squarely of a universal apocalyptic religious motif, namely that of The Flood. The belief that the sea levels will rise due to mankind’s moral infraction against the Divine, be it God or Mother-earth/Nature is a primal religious story existent in nearly every religion. The Noah story is but one example familiar to Westerners but there are myriad versions of this motif across the cultures of the world. Given that none of these religious stories are empirically true and are of an allegorical nature despite the propensity of literal believers adhering to them, why shouldn’t we observe that the AGW story is just another spin on religious sentiments that have caught the collective imagination of a scientifically illiterate populous?

  2. Christian | 05/10/2015 at 3:07 AM |

    Your article is misleading. The article you mentioned was in fact written, but almost 5 years ago. Since then, the APS has put their climate change statement up for review and included noted climate change…I will not say skeptics since I do not necessarily know if that is the case, but those who question the data (whether or not they believe in climate change is independent of whether or not they believe the data supports the concept). Almost nothing that the APS does is “was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch”, but in this case several months, to a year, was put into the discussion in framing the conclusions. The draft statement came out a few weeks ago that reaffirms the APS’ belief in a man made component to climate change, rebutting many of the incorrect claims about the APS and made by Dr. Lewis. You do not have to agree with the APS, but your presentation ignores current events and this gives the appearance of shoddy research on your part, and selective sourcing.

    This completely avoids the main point, however, that the APS has once again, including those who have serious questions about the data, reaffirmed the belief that there is a man made component to climate change. This continued support by the vast majority of the world’s scientists, almost none of which have a financial incentive to sway their opinions (certainly not physicists), makes your entire argument very odd and uninformed.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.