US physics professor Harold Lewis in his resignation letter:
‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’
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.
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
Once more climate change, before I leave the issue and the debate to itself (for the time being). I am quite positively surprised to see mainstream media
suddenly opening up to discussions that have long been conducted in “underground” publications and forums on the net. Articles openly criticising and disclosing the various agendas of the dumbing down and enslaving globalist politics are suddenly appearing in newspapers and magazines that until recently toed the official (sanctioned) line.
(Telegraph.co.uk is the online version of the newspaper The Daily Telegraph. It includes the articles from the print additions of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph as well as web-only content such as breaking news, features, picture galleries and blogs. It was named UK Consumer Website of the Year in 2007 and 2009 by the Association of Online Publishers.
The Daily Telegraph is owned by the Barclay Brothers after being bought from Hollston Inc. Amidst the unraveling of the takeover Sir David Barclay suggested that The Daily Telegraph might in the future no longer be the “house newspaper” of the Conservatives. In an interview with The Guardian he said, “Where the government are right we shall support them.” [Source Wikipedia]).
Why then this entire story? What is the idea behind it? Please watch the following sequence from the Movie “The Obama Deception” to get a basic understanding of the idea.
If you go around the globe, you find no rise (in sea levels) anywhere.
But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no
death threat. They say there is nothing good to come from a
sea-level rise, only problems, coastal problems. If you have a
temperature rise, if it’s a problem in one area, it’s beneficial
in another area. But sea level is the real “bad guy,” and therefore
they have talked very much about it. But the real thing is,
that it doesn’t exist in observational data, only in computer
Where is ice melting? Some Alpine glaciers
are melting, others are advancing. Antarctic ice is certainly
not melting; all the Antarctic records show expansion
of ice. Greenland is the dark horse here for sure; the Arctic
may be melting, but it doesn’t matter, because they’re already
floating, and it has no effect. A glacier like Kilimanjaro,
which is important, on the Equator, is only melting because
of deforestation. At the foot of the Kilimanjaro, there was a
rain forest; from the rain forest came moisture, from that
came snow, and snow became ice. Now, they have cut down
the rain forest, and instead of moisture, there comes heat;
heat melts the ice, and there’s no more snow to generate the
ice. So it’s a simple thing, but has nothing to do with temperature.
It’s the misbehavior of the people around the mountain.
So again, it’s like Tuvalu: We should say this deforestation,
that’s the thing. But instead they say, “No, no, it’s the
(excerpt from an Interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner by Gregory Murphy for EIR on June 6, published under the title “Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud” on June 22, 2007. Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. You can download the entire Interview here).
The only thing that remains to worry about is the fact, that many now may think that “if there is no manmade global warming, then there is no problem”. But climate change is real and much of it is manmade! It’s not caused by CO2, but by deforestation through overexploitation and a lack of re-afforestation. Please read my recent posts for further illustration. The probably biggest threat humanity faces is water scarcity! No water – no Food! It’s that simple. Fortunately many of the emerging countries (like India) are becoming increasingly aware of this fact (through experience) and have started massive reforestation programmes. But much more needs to be done and on an international level. Existing forests need to be protected and new forests need to be grown. There is ample space in the deserts and on deserted wastelands of this earth to plant trees.
this is a sequel to the previous post
(please read the previous post before commenting on this)
Whoever does not agree with the IPCC consensus on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is called a “climate change denier” or “climate denier” by the global warming theorists.
The real question however might not be so much about what label we attach to our persuasion, but rather is there something we can do about climate change – what can be done about it? Which are the most effective solutions and actions to remedy the problem?
Independent scientific analysis and research, unbiased by sponsor’s interests or ideological intent (if such a thing ever exists), might produce “an inconvenient truth” for both the supporters and the deniers of “anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming”, because it will have to include and consider a plethora of other potential causes in the research, and it might come up with findings that are not only shattering the prevailing carbon dioxide thesis, but which are also very disturbing to anybody who thinks all is right.
Climate change is happening, that’s an undeniable fact, the deceit with the current thesis lies in the use of the term “global warming” as a synonym for “climate change”. We can consider every human caused disruption of natural climatic cycles as climate change, and a disturbance of such natural patterns usually shows effects in the climate of larger regions – with sometimes devastating consequences: Extended draughts, sudden floods, landslides and massive storms are the most obvious ramifications of such human interference with the fragile ecosystem.
Apart from greenhouse gases, which certainly can and do have an influence on weather patterns (once more: carbon dioxide is just one – a minor – greenhouse gas, there are other gases and noxious fumes that might play a more significant role in the process…), a further major impact on natural cycles is certainly created with the massive deforestation and desertification of our planet. Deforestation has gained momentum since the 1950s, but has certainly been happening over centuries and at a higher pace during the past two hundred years or so of modern industrialisation (world population around 1800 was an estimated 978 million people, in 2008 it reached over 6,7 billion).
Climate change cannot remain a dispute of energy politics alone as it affects the fundamentals of our existence: Water and Food. Without proper precipitation it will be impossible to grow anything. Water scarcity is a direct result from deforestation, as forests and trees are retaining water in the soil and regulate the microclimate through evaporation and condensation – cloud formation. The combined microclimates make the macroclimate with its rythms and cycles. A change in local surface temperature due to desertification has an impact on a supra regional phenomenon like an El Nino. Reforestation is not just about carbon sequestration or the “greener nicer look”, but about protecting the global climate, increasing production capacities and inhabitable space on our planet. It is about our survival.
Maybe the IPCC is wrong about global warming, but isn’t their agenda to drastically reduce CO2 emissions a noble one? No, say 100 scientists in an open letter to the United Nations: “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.”
Critics claim the IPCC agenda would hinder poor nations from developing, and energy restrictions envisioned by the IPCC would cause suffering. “My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short,” Christy said.
Denis G. Rancourt, professor of physics at the University of Ottawa opines: “I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels, backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth.”
Climate change has to be tackled by restoring ecoregions to their proper functioning. It’s a regional problem with supra regional impact and global expansion. Coordinated global efforts are absolutely essential to achieve sustainable results. It takes a multi layered approach encompassing introduction of environmental friendly technology, preservation, restoration.
Does the global warming theory serve as a distraction from the real pressing problems that need to be solved? Is it a scheme to further allocate resources to the wealthy, withdrawing them from the poor? In no way this must be allowed. Climate change concerns everyone. Availability of sufficient food, drinking water and energy for basic requirements for every citizen of this planet can and must be accomplished – it’s a human right. This is about just humanitarian considerations. This planet can sustain all and everyone if nature is helped back into an efficient and balanced state.
Are we heading for economy driven science or a science driven economy? is it really all profits that matter? Money is essential in creating solutions, but first a solution must solve a problem not necessarily yield immediate monetarial revenues. This is not just about solving the economic crisis or about profits for a few. If we just think short term gains, we will never manage to tackle the destruction of our environment. An emerging sustainable green economy which is not based on hype, but on need, can generate myriads of new job opportunities for everyone – not only for a priviledged few.
Is the global warming theory the modern opium of the people? Are deniers just disturbing an attractive scheme? Is the debate open to all sights and opinions? Or is the outcome predestined by the greed for profits from exploitation of cheap resources? Will there anything be left for our children? Will anything change for the better or are we just changing the name of the game?
global warming: a theory carbon dioxide: not a crucial factor in climate change (maybe a result?), useful and necessary for plant growth climate change: happening as widespread regional phenomena, supra regional impact, global appearance – plural: climate changes major causes of climate change: destruction of regulating natural factors: deforestation and desertification, drainage of swamps and wetlands, particle pollution from soot, smoke and dust (city smog) …others.
Another theory – which is directly linked to the energy issue – is the one about man-made global warming caused by carbon dioxide which is fostered by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Soon the United Nations Climate Change Conference will be held in Copenhagen from December 7th – 18th, where thinkers and speakers will pass another round of the climate change debate, discussing measures to alleviate the impacts of human generated carbon dioxide emissions. The theory of “man-made global warming” caused by such emissions from burning fossil fuels and from exhalation, is a controversial one. While climate change undeniably happens in many regions of the world with sudden and sometimes lasting cataclysmic events such as cyclons, drought or floods, it is not established, whether these changes show a general trend towards an increase in average global temperatures and if such changes are really caused by the human carbon footprint. Certain future trend analysis, which are based on computer models, show the possibility of a warming between 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius until 2100, others warn from “faster, stronger and sooner climate change” and dire consequences while again others are expecting a preliminary cooling. John Cristy’s extensive temperature data set measured from satellites does not support a general warming trend, although it shows a measurable slight increase in surface temperature which is caused by human activity. To the layman it may seem that this debate is a clash of opinions based on fears, vague assumptions and projections rather than a scientific assessment based on observation and exact measurements – even the subjective experience of the kind “it’s getting warmer year by year” cannot easily be related to by individuals.
Manmade carbon dioxide is considered the main culprit in the mainstream climate discussion, held responsible for melting icecaps and glaciers, but many reputable scientists disagree with this theory (!). John Cristy, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science and lead author for the 2001 report by the IPCC, clearly stated in an interview with National Public Radio: “It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way” and he confirmed that he was “still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels.”
There are basically two main fractions engaged in the debate of global warming: the proponents of the “official” version insisting the cause of global warming to be man-made, and the ones that see global warming as an effect of normal fluctuations, like increased solar activity due to the sun’s 11 years activity cycle. The latter deny any significant role of carbon dioxide in the process. In fact some are convinced that dioxide levels always follow a temperature increase – not vice versa.
The content of carbon dioxide in the air today avarages around 387 ppm, which equals 0.0387 percent per volume. If this is to be reduced to 350 ppm as certain proponents of IPCC’s assessment suggest to be “ambitious but feasible”, you would actually reduce todays value just about 9.5% (read: just about one tenth of 0,04%) or in an absolute value 0,0037% per volume and it is very hard to believe that such a small reduction will have any significant ecological impact. (To make it a bit more visual for non mathematicians: Imagine you have a cube of air one meter high, one meter wide, one meter deep. The CO2 will be a much smaller cube inside this big cube, measuring roughly 7.29 cm each side – maybe comparable to the volume of a new fluffy tennis ball. If you want to reduce it to the target volume of 350 ppm as suggested, you would have to schrink this small body just about 2.4 millimeters to 7.05 cm sidelength – to stay with the illustration of the tennis ball it was as if you shaved it bald – so that it will now have a slightly smaller diameter. Or to get a grip you can use a measuring tape and look up the values.).
Carbon dioxide concentration in the air fluctuates with seasons, as the photosynthesis – conversion of CO2 into plant sugars (carbohydrates, starch) and manufacturing of oxygen – of vegetation is involved in the carbon cycle: In spring and summer the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air on the northern hemisphere is lower when plants grow and it increases in falls and winter when plants cease this conversion, decay and decompose. Carbon dioxide’s specific weight is about 1.5 more than the one of air.That’s why carbon dioxide is gathering near the ground or in depressions and hardly rises up to the upper atmosphere, where it is said to cause the “greenhouse effect”. You can try this out by filling a balloon with CO2 – it won’t rise…
Apropos ballooning: CO2 is said to be “ballooning” from it’s origin in regions with a high man-made output to regions less densly populated and affecting them most, like for example the indian ocean and the sahel zone. But if you compare the CO2 atmospheric concentration map with a NASA image depicting the desert areas of the world, you will find an astonishing match.
Map showing elevated carbon dioxide levels
Nasa image showing the deserts of the world
This might be considered a valid indication, that elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations mainly exist in areas without much active vegetation and it could be concluded that simple measures like reforesting deserted areas could easily counteract such concentrations. Eritrea – a small underdeveloped country in the Sahel belt – meets the challenges of climate change by alleviating drought through reforestation and proofs such measures to be highly effective.
But while such simple and practical methods like reforestation are showing very promising results in solving the problem of climate change for entire regions, the theorists – among them a massive portion of the so called scientific community, myriad of political and economical exponents and even a greater number of environmentalists – seem to have lost themselves in an ideological haze, proclaiming the danger and toxicity of carbon dioxide and suggesting all kind of financial, administrative and technological hotchpotch to defend human civilisation from drowning in rising sealevels.
One thing that surprises me most about the entire debate is the high emphasis on CO2 as the almost exclusive cause for climate change. We daily hear and read just carbon. And carbon has received such a negative connotation through this entire debate that we all slowly turn into carbofobics. The air you exhale is saturated with 4 % per volume of carbon dioxide. There exist some scientific research that suggest carbon dioxide to be unhealthy at a concentration of 0,5 % (the concentration in a bottle of Pepsi) or dangerous to animal life at 5% per Volume (if inhaled over extended periods). As I remember from attending chemistry lessons some years back at highschool carbon dioxide is non toxic, but at the most an irritant, with the potential to suffocate you, if you happen to sit in a pit without proper ventilation. Carbon is one of the main building blocks of all living organisms – your body consists of 18% Carbon – and carbon dioxide is a vital component in the air, as there would be no photosynthesis – no plantlife – without it.
And carbon dioxide is just one of the known “greenhouse” gases. There are many other gases and factors that influence the global climate: Water vapour (atmospheric content + 1%) and clouds are definitely ranking much higher in their influence retaining solar heat within our atmosphere. And methane, a gas which due to its leight weight easily rises into the higher atmosphere where it remains active for about 8.5 years before it oxidises into carbon dioxide and which also experienced a massive increase in its atmospheric occurrence over the last 200 years due to human influence, mainly from waste deposited in landfills and breeding cattle, can trap about 20 times the heat of CO2. But it seems hardly to get mentioned in the theory. Nobody ever says: “stop eating meat from mass animal production, because such behavior is causing global warming.” Nor is there hardly any mention of airtravel as possible source of carbon dioxide abundance in the upper atmosphere although airplanes expell this gas in much higher altitude (and much higher quantities) than let’s say a car. And finally: Particle pollutants like grime and dust contribute their fair share to atmospheric pollution and its influence on solar radiation.
Remains the question: is the entire global warming theory just a hoax? Is there any scientific evidence for man-made global warming or are we dealing with a lot of speculation, hype and fear mongering? Are we debating a believe system and produce a lot of hot carbon saturated air while debating (which would further augment global warming according to the theory)? Do we base a newly emerging green economy on make-believe? Why? We will surely come back to this questions at a later point.
No doubt we have all reason to abolish polluting practice and strive for ecological solutions – not because we need a new color scheme for our economy, but because we need to take care of our very life foundation and pass on a tidy planet to future generations. I fear the huge amounts of highly toxic waste that are continuosly dumped into our environment are posing a much higher threat to the survival of any living species (human included) on this planet and give much more reason to worry, than slightly elevated levels of carbon dioxide. And remember: to reduce latter a simple remedy would do: stop slashing forests and plant more trees. Scientific methods do not have to be complicated in order to be effective (Neither does an intelligent approach need to be sanctioned by climate “scientists” to make a viable solution!).