In a scathing resignation letter to his colleagues at the American Physical Society, Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, spoke passionately about what he feels has been a blind eye turned toward evidence of fraud in the debate over anthropogenic global warming. This arises namely from the publication of letters between climate scientists around the world, centering on East Anglia University in the UK, which resulted in the so-called “Climategate” fiasco late last year.
In spite of evidence showing how climate science has been, in at least a few instances, controlled and manipulated, the American Physical Society did little to rectify the situation, Professor Lewis claims. Climate Science blogger Anthony Watts says Lewis’ letter is “on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.” Sharing that sentiment with Watts, void of political motives, but also in stark objection to the kind of control the scientific community allows to remain shackled to the release of honest, unbiased science in the modern era, for your reading pleasure we have also excerpted Harold Lewis’ resignation letter for you in its entirety.
The following correspondence was sent by Lewis to Curtis G. Callan, Jr. of Princeton University, who serves as current President of the American Physical Society:
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
by
Scientist like the Howard Luis do a disservice to the people by claiming this isn’t happening based on some emails of non-objective scientist. This all reminds me of the scientist who claimed that bacteria couldn’t be the cause of disease because they were too small. Humans have done more than just pollute. The have drastically change this planet including every river the jungles and forest and the oceans themselves.
Yet we have scientist like Luis tells us all the other evidence is wrong. It just natural what is happening now and if he’s wrong? Well the world will go on just not with the likes of us around. People see to many movies and the idea that all these scientist around the world are conspiring for research money is worst than the theories i hear in the UFO community.
Joe Capp
UFO Media Matters
Non-Commercial Blog
Hi Joe,
So far as I understand, Lewis doesn’t deny that climate change is occurring. In fact, you may notice in the final quote I included at the end of this article that he said, “If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth.” I think, rather than arguing completely against anthropogenic global warming, Lewis was simply wanting both sides of the debate to be given fair treatment. This was based on the dismissive reaction most of the scientific mainstream had toward the East Anglia University fiasco last year, as well as similar instances where climate data has been found to be in error where NASA and other organizations were concerned.
Based on this, it would appear that, in all fairness, greater scrutiny should be offered not just with regard to climate change, but to all the various sciences. Lewis, by merely expressing this, didn’t necessarily toss an endorsement to the climate skeptic camp.
Thanks for taking time to post your comment, Joe!
Cheers,
-Micah
Lewis is emeritus professor, which means he’s not really up to date on the latest science in his field let alone climate science.
Climate deniers like anthony watts give credence to total cranks like Monckton. A sure sign that they know nothing of climate science. The “Anthropomorphic” global warming mentioned by the writer of this article shows a basic lack of knowledgeof the subject. At least Micah corrected his mistake.
To Joe Capp:
Can you at least used the correct spelling of the man’s name?
That’s right Alan, I had mistakenly used “anthropomorphic,” rather than “anthropogenic” in an earlier draft of this piece. Never fear, I most certainly know the difference… the error must have stemmed from my frequent use of the former, in reference to anthropomorphic ape-creatures and the like.
That said, let’s turn this around for a moment. If “anthropogenic” were similarly used erroneously in context with, say, an ape-creature, would it denote a “man-made” hybrid monstrosity (i.e. a human-ape hybrid, sometimes called “humanzees”)?
Ha ha, looks like I’m playing word games again. Either way, glad you pointed that out…
-Micah (the author of this article)!