How many more leading scientists will resign?

The latest eminent scientist to resign is physicist Professor Harold Lewis who has been a member of the American Physical Society for 67 years. Here are a few snippets of his views on the state of climate science:

"It (man made global warming) is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

"The original Statement (official APS position on man made global warming) , 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."

"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."

If you haven't read his entire letter you can certainly get a feel for the tone of Professor Lewis. How many more leading scientists will either resign or begin to speak out? Why has the mainstream media seemed to ignore this?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/5...

Update:

Pegminer: "...he is essentially a nobody." You did not address a single point of the Professor's statement. The entire content of your post was centred on "authority". The old guy who disagrees is a nobody and "probably conservative" and the old guy who agrees is "more eminent".

This line of reasoning has all the hallmarks of a religion. You are blinded by your faith.

6 Answers

Relevance
  • David
    Lv 4
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    "How many more leading scientists will resign?"

    Probably not many. Most scientists don't really pay much attention to the political machinations of the professional societies to which they belong. I know that a significant segment of the AGU strenuously opposed the 2006 revision to the society's position statement on climate change. But I don't know of many members who quit over it. Roy Spencer, John Christy, Don Easterbrook and a most serious skeptics have continued to be active members in the society.

    The AAPG used to have a very strong position statement in opposition to that of the AGU's and most other groups. A small, but vocal, minority of the AAPG threatened to quit if the AAPG didn't fall more into line. The AAPG revised its position to a very neutral stance a few years ago. The AAPG had conducted a poll of the prior position statement, which showed ~85% support among poll respondents. The problem was that ~90% of those polled, did not respond. Doran's poll of academic & gov't scientists published by the AGU showed that 97% of climate scientists agreed that AGW was valid. That poll also suffered from a very low response rate... The climate scientist sample was ~79 people.

    Very few scientists join professional societies *for* the politics. Society position statements on various issues are 98% politics and formulated by the small minority of members who thrive on the politics.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    >>How many more leading scientists will resign?<<

    None.

    <<The latest eminent scientist to resign<<

    In what way is he eminent? And who else has resigned?

    >>is physicist Professor Harold Lewis<<

    Professor Emeritus

    >>who has been a member of the American Physical Society for 67 years.<<

    Making him ~90 years old at least. I have no problem with believing that many at that age still have sharp faculties, but I do wonder when last he performed any research and if/when he was even involved in climate research.

    >>If you haven't read his entire letter you can certainly get a feel for the tone of Professor Lewis.<<

    I have read the entire letter. It sounds to me like he has no scientific basis *at all* for his position.

    >>How many more leading scientists will either resign<<

    So far, not one leading scientist has resigned...

    >>or begin to speak out?<<

    Have any even spoken out? And by leading scientist, you must be speaking of one at the top of his field, not simply one that gets a lot of press on Fox 'News'.

    >>Why has the mainstream media seemed to ignore this?<<

    Because it's obviously only important to AGW deniers and not the general public?

    Edit: [re: Jim's answer]

    >>He certainly was correct, that it is psuedoscience,<<

    No he's not.

    >>and probably the biggest one of all time.<<

    The biggest one what?

    >>Governments are salivating at the prospect of potential revenues that they can get from Cap and Trade<<

    That has nothing to do with physical science. That is all politics and economics...

    >>and all they have to do is fool a few weak minded people.<<

    Weak minded people don't need to be fooled. They do all the work themselves.

    >>I notice these weak minded people never hesitate to insult those who disagree with them.<<

    You're the one who is being insulting...

    >>I agree with David that not many will resign.<<

    He's wrong. None will resign. They would basically be destroying their career by doing so.

    >>I suppose you might have a few that just can't take the lies and distortions anymore<<

    Most of the lies and distortions appear to coming from the denial camp...

    >>but I think the tide is probably gradually changing against the alarmists and if governments learn that we don't want anymore of their taxes<<

    So, you're basing your opinion on the fear of increased taxes, and you think that others should as well?

    >>then AGW will probalby be left to die on the alter of actual science.<<

    What do taxes have to do with actual science?

    _

  • 9 years ago

    Hal Lewis is not a "leading scientist." Maybe 35 or 40 years ago he might have ranked at the second tier, but certainly not in the field of atmospheric science, where he is essentially a nobody. "Climategate" had no effect on the APS position because it was irrelevant to it, except for emphasizing the need for making the statement in the first place--people that are ignorant of the science are easily distracted by lies and misdirections of the denial side. Apparently even people that should know better, like Hal Lewis, can also be distracted. Maybe he wouldn't have been when he was on the top of his game, but his association with the JASON group of theoretical scientists that did military work probably has made him more conservative.

    However, I could mention that Walter Munk, a more eminent (and older) scientist than Lewis--that is still active in science, does believe in AGW.

    I don't really understand why deniers obsess on the few scientists that don't believe in AGW while ignoring the thousands that do. I guess they will cling to anything to desperately support their denialism in the face of evidence that mounts daily.

    EDIT: Ottawa Mike in fact I did address YOUR question and HIS letter. You are the one that's claiming he's a leading scientist--I'm saying he was a somewhat prominent scientist, many many years ago, but he is not now--and that you're ignoring the thousands of current scientists, some of which actually qualify as leading scientists.

    I addressed his letter through my allusion to "Climategate." The fact that that is one of the main points of his letter shows that he is not only out of touch with the science but in no position to judge the actions of other scientists. Frankly, I take that as evidence that the guy sits around listening to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh these days. Multiple investigations of the hacked emails show no evidence of fraud or malfeasance, but deniers like yourself and Lewis keep going over them again and again in your minds, weaving vast conspiracies out of them.

    Similarly this is at least the FOURTH question on what is essentially non-news: a retired scientist letting his membership lapse in a professional society because he doesn't like the society's position on a field in which he is untrained and hasn't done research. Somehow you think his opinion weighs more importantly than the thousands of active scientists in that field. I don't get it, who cares what Lewis thinks? Frankly, I do listen to people like William Gray or Roger Pielke when they have doubts about AGW. Hal Lewis? I don't think so. You should at least look to people trained in atmospheric science to support your position.

    One more EDIT: Just for kicks, I re-read his letter one more time. It is all about appeal to authority--his purported authority--and has zero physical content. Nothing is based on physics--it is all about conspiracies. I'm sorry to say this, because Lewis has had a distinguished career, but now the letter just sounds like the ravings of one more conspiracy theorist.

    HIS AGE: There has been a lot of speculation on his age. For the record he was born October 1, 1923, making him 87 years old. Don't infer anything from this, I just thought I'd end the speculation about it.

  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    He certainly was correct, that it is psuedoscience, and probably the biggest one of all time. Governments are salivating at the prospect of potential revenues that they can get from Cap and Trade and all they have to do is fool a few weak minded people. I notice these weak minded people never hesitate to insult those who disagree with them. I agree with David that not many will resign. I suppose you might have a few that just can't take the lies and distortions anymore but I think the tide is probably gradually changing against the alarmists and if governments learn that we don't want anymore of their taxes then AGW will probalby be left to die on the alter of actual science.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    <<The latest eminent scientist to resign is physicist Professor Harold Lewis>>

    He no doubt is an "eminent" scientist because he agrees with you!!!

    Meanwhile all those Nobel :Prize winners and members of the National Academy of Sciences are not, right?

  • 9 years ago

    Your question is pure propaganda. Professor Emeritus Lewis is not even a working scientist, far less a leading one. The professor's statement, which I have read in its entirety, contains no scientific information, your question contains no facts.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.