Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned from his post at the University of California after admitting that global warming was a big scam, in a shocking resignation letter.

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

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…

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.

One comment on “Shocking resignation letter

  1. Steve Garcia

    Upon FINALLY deciding to check into what the anthropogenic global warming hubbub was, back about 2001, I went looking for what should have been the first step to accusing humans of causing warming. And what would that have been? The strong evidence that everything ELSE – all other candidates – was eliminated. Process of elimination. Standard scientific process.

    Shockingly, after at lest 15 years of research into the subject, not one study existed proving that – say – natural internal climate variation or cosmic variations was ruled out. Ohmygod, did that set off alarm bells. There is no way that they could rightly assert human activity as THE cause without eliminating the obvious other candidates.

    Sadly, in the 15 extra years since then, I’ve only seen one study that purported to use such a process of elimination. And IT was flawed, in that all it did was re-state the human accusations within the then robust spin of “humans are vile and criminal for trying to kill the planet.”

    I was paying CLOSE attention when the mentioned Climategate email trove was made public. The IPPC inner circle centered on East Anglia outed themselves and disgraced not only themselves but all of climatology and all of science and MUCH of peer review. “Hide the decline is still in my vocabulary as an example of fudged science and aggressive spinning (lying) about what the evidence really show. ALL of the defense of those emails was poltical covering for friends in high places. Internal politics.

    Robert Hooke, Newton’s nemesis in the Royal Society, pushed long and hard to only allow provable and repeatable experimentation to be allowed within the hallowed halls. Alas, Newton’s own internal politics won the day and now we have study after study published in peer reviewed papers that are compilations of others’ work, or are verbiage and jumping to conclusions that stands where experimental results should be.

    I normally read from 5 to 25 peer reviewed papers a month, and I hang my head in frustration at the many cobbled, crowbarred arguments and premature conclusions that are presented as science. Hooke would turn over in his grave at the weak, mealy-mouthed, over-concluded, over-speculated passages in those peer reviewed articles. The authors should go back to middle school to begin to learn what they missed the first time through – that speculation and pandering to funding agencies is not science.

    My new years resolution for 2017 is to find ONE paper that does not include the word “maybe”.

Leave a reply


Captcha * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.