UPDATE5: (Saturday 10/16/10) It has been a week, and I think this piece has been well distributed, so I’m putting it in regular queue now and it will gradually scroll off the page.
UPDATE4: (Friday 10/15/10) APS member Roger Cohen comments here on Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth op/ed.
UPDATE3: (Friday 10/15/10) Andrew Revkin, after a week (I sent him this story last Friday) of digging around to get just the right rebuttal, responds here at Dot Earth.
UPDATE2: (Wednesday 10/13/10) This just in…click for the story.
APS responds! – Deconstructing the APS response to Dr. Hal Lewis resignation
UPDATE: (Saturday 10/9/10) Since this came in late Friday, many of our weekday WUWT readers might not see this important story, so I’m sticking it to the top for a couple of days. New stories will appear just below this one, please scroll down to see them. – Anthony
(Originally posted on 10/8/10 ) We’ve previously covered the APS here, when I wrote:
While Copenhagen and its excesses rage, a quiet revolution is starting.
Indeed, not so quiet now. It looks like it is getting ugly inside with the public airing of the resignation of a very prominent member who writes:
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.
…
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.- Hal Lewis
Below is his resignation letter made public today, via the GWPF.
This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter 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.
What I would really like to see though, is this public resignation letter given the same editorial space as Michael Mann in today’s Washington Post.
Readers, we can do this. Here’s the place at WaPo to ask for it. For anyone writing to the WaPo, the national@washpost.com, is the national news editorial desk. The Post’s Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, is the readers’ representative within the newspaper. E-mail him at ombudsman@washpost.com or call 202-334-7582.
Spread the word on other blogs. Let’s see if they have enough integrity to provide a counterpoint. – Anthony
======================================
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
Dear 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—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.
Hal
==========================================================
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)
“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.”
==============================
Only a fool would disregard the implications of this statement.
The only reason this statement needed to be made, was global warming hysteria.
It is just this one thing, that is threatening to tear apart science.
A theory, a profitable theory, is still only a theory.
JPeden says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:16 pm
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 4:45 pm
“Lewis is not a climate scientist….”
Are you? If not, then perhaps you should follow your own rule and not comment upon the merits of Climate Science’s CO2AGW “science”.
Nor do you seem to know any of the major critcisms of Climate Science advanced by the “sceptics”.
So just where does that leave you?”
Everyone one must make up one’s own mind on the basis of the sources of information available, and find a way to evaluate the quality and authority of the information one has, in order to form one’s opinion.
I have a strong background in Physics myself. I know enough to be dangerous, but I am going to rely on what is in the peer reviewed literature of climate science and the opinions of researchers to make up my mind. I understand what it takes to master a subject. There is no indication that Hal Lewis has demonstrated any mastery of climate science. Aside from his book on Nuclear Winter, there is no trace of any research that was performed by Hal Lewis anywhere on Google Scholar that I could discover.
Hal Lewis himself accepted the models developed by climate scientists about 20 years ago, when he said that Global Warming due to CO2 emissions was a threat.
I am familiar with the criticisms of AGW and have listed some of them in my previous posts. I don’t claim to have listed all of them, but have mentioned enough to show that I am familiar with both sides of the controversy.
EFS_Junior says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I mean his whole life’s work boils down to a single resignation?
That’s the most important thing this individual has done in 87 years of living, a single resignation letter?
You are the one who wants to know, so why don’t you try to find out? First see if you can figure out the significance of Lewis’ resignation, then report back. It’s pretty simple, but I’m betting you can’t.
Bruce Cobb says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:44 pm
“eadler; John Maynard Keynes once said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Many, many folks who are now climate skeptic/realists used to believe the Warmist nonsense. Another famous person said “The people will believe a big lie, but not a small lie.” The Warmist propaganda machine certainly did its job well, with the MSM all on board, and politicians, various and sundry rent-seeking NGO’s, politicians, and sadly, once-revered scientific organizations also falling in line. It is no surprise then, to anyone with half a brain anyway, that Mr. Lewis once believed it.
As for your pathetic statement Lewis is not a climate scientist, and wasn’t really much of a scientist in the first place you are simply using the logical fallacies of Appeal to Authority, as well as the ad Hominem form of argument you obviously so adore. Keep up the good work. Would you care for another shovel? That one looks worn.”
There are many posters on this thread who have heralded Lewis’ resignation as something significant, as if Lewis were a significant authority on physics or climate.
This is a claim that Lewis is some kind of authority who lends credence to the argument against AGW. These posters give Lewis the prestige to make a credible charge of fraud against the leadership of the AIP.
This amounts to an argument from authority that doesn’t stand up when you look at the career of Lewis, and the fact that 20 years ago, when he had all his marbles, he praised the very models that he now criticizes. I am NOT making an argument from authority, I am countering an argument from authority by pointing out that in the area of Climate Science Lewis has no standing, and he has not done any significant research in any field.
In fact the movement of global temperature since he wrote the book in which he praised the Climate Models made in the 90’s, has been consistent with the theory that the earth is warming due to CO2 emissions. Temperatures have gone up considerably since then.
The fact that some people have changed their minds about global warming is certainly not a convincing argument. A couple of recent surveys have shown that 97% of active climate science researchers accept AGW as a significant force driving climate.
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:53 pm
There is no indication that Hal Lewis has demonstrated any mastery of climate science.
Lewis stated above, 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.
Lewis understands now that Climate Science is not real science. It doesn’t follow the Scientific Method.
So perhaps it’s now you who needs to catch up?
Chris Edwards says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:28 pm
“eadler, I suggest you take a look at the carbon credits and who has to buy them (in the UK hospitals???) and who gets given them, check out EUreferendum they carried a story (as did some daily national newspapers and a google search confirmed it) about a steel company in Wales who gave up pthe whole plant and closed down as they were just scrapimg by and the next financial year they were liable for millions of pounds worth of carbon credits, at the same time the famous train engineer from India opened basicly the same plant but recieved that many credits, get it yet, dont look at the huge scam, organised by the UN and yes Pachuri has his snout in this trough too, about the R12/R13 scam. Get your facts straight and see what is in front of your eyes, even if it offends you!”
Who buys and sells carbon credits has no bearing on the validity of the science which shows that AGW is a significant driver of the climate.
The dirt thrown at Pachauri has been proven to be slander. Get your facts straight.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/aug/26/rajendra-pachauri-financial-relationships
If you are going to claim that the theory of AGW is a conspiracy theory at least get your basic facts right. Your post is pathetic.
JPeden says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:05 pm
“EFS_Junior says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:22 pm
“I mean his whole life’s work boils down to a single resignation?
That’s the most important thing this individual has done in 87 years of living, a single resignation letter?”
You are the one who wants to know, so why don’t you try to find out? First see if you can figure out the significance of Lewis’ resignation, then report back. It’s pretty simple, but I’m betting you can’t.”
Lewis’ resignation has zero significance. He is a non entity and isn’t going to persuade a significant number of people to resign.
He has never published anything of significant in the field of physics.
The biography that accompanies his letter doesn’t refer to anything he has accomplished, and there is nothing in Google Scholar that refers to his work.
In the light of this information, the burden of proof is on those who consider this a signficant development.
You might as well argue that John McCain’s change of mind is a significant development in the history of climate science.
Get real!
JPeden says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:26 pm
“eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:53 pm
There is no indication that Hal Lewis has demonstrated any mastery of climate science.
Lewis stated above, 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.
Lewis understands now that Climate Science is not real science. It doesn’t follow the Scientific Method.”
Lewis himself has never done anything significant in the world of science. He has basically been a bureaucrat.
The fact that you agree with his opinion does not demonstrate a mastery of science on his part.
By making such an argument, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of logic.
It is a case of the blind leading the blind.
u.k.(us) says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:51 pm
““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.”
==============================
Only a fool would disregard the implications of this statement.
The only reason this statement needed to be made, was global warming hysteria.
It is just this one thing, that is threatening to tear apart science.
A theory, a profitable theory, is still only a theory.”
This is a foolish argument. There are many scientific theories that have resulted in a lot of large research contracts. This is not prima facie evidence that they are false. Biological evolution, nuclear physics, medical science and DNA are examples of fields in which a lot of scientists found work. Are all the scientists working in this field scamming the public? Do you believe evolution and DNA is a hoax? Is E=Mc^2 wrong? In fact climate scientists don’t make a lot of money relative to other scientists. They are all pretty much upper middle class folks.
The fact that a scientific theory has adherents doesn’t prove that it is false and people only are in it for the money. This is one of the more stupid arguments put up by skeptics, when their scientific objections to AGW are shown to be false.
JPeden says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:18 pm
“Matt says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:04 pm
“I don’t understand how the resignation of an 87-year-old physicist proves that climate change is not happening? Could somebody explain this to me?”
Climate change is always happening. But it’s Climate Science’s own “tenet” which claims it can’t be happening now unless fossil fuel CO2 is causing it. Pretty strange, eh?”
Not strange at all. Your comment betrays ignorance.
It is known that the tilt of the earth’s axis going forward would cause the earth to cool in the long term. Changes in the output of the sun cannot account for the warming we have seen in the last 35 years. AGW is not a “tenet” but rather is the result of modelling the earth’s climate using physics.
eadler says on October 15, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Pot, kettle, black?
Actually, the temperatures we are currently undergoing look lower than the Holocene Climate Optimum and seem lower that those seen in previous inter-glacials.
That is, we are still rebounding from the last glacial.
Why don’t you start your own blog and astound the world with your brilliance?
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Your argument doesn’t make sense. It is a lame hypothesis for the purpose of rationalizing your position.
No, if my exposition does not make sense your response is entrenched denial of any other possibility of looking at the world except as a Chicken Little.
I described an analogy to what happened to me, a retired 70 year old particle physicist. Until three years ago I was going with the tide on AGW precisely because I trusted on the integrity of scientists in other disciplines assuming they were working as rigorously within the scientific method. I have over forty years experience with modeling theory in computer programs and comparing with data.
In my case, as I am naive on world politics and mass movements, I started smelling fish when reading somewhere that there was no medieval warm period. I said “what the $%^”. My encyclopedic knowledge included not only the vikings cultivating Greenland but also that in the byzantine period there was a year where they gathered two crops, it was so temperate. At that time, the hunter who was found in the Alps was in the news. Bells started ringing. It is obvious that if the passes were open when he was hunting the temperature must have been higher than the one when the snows melted so that he could be found. That was the beginning of the thread , and discussions with another physicist in a different field, who challenged me to read up and present to our retired scientists lecture series a lecture on global warming. I started digging into the TAR first and into AR4. My physicist’s conclusion is that they, AGWmers, have taken great liberties with physics and enormous license with programing and created a video world of their expectations and presented it as “experiments” !!!! of all things.
The physics foundations are flimsy, and even though I have a lecture that I keep updating,( there are six “predictions” of the models that falsify them), the simplest argument comes from the weather projections: climate projections use the same logic and maths in programs as weather projections. Would you trust weather reports two weeks ahead on whether to carry an umbrella or not? Sometimes they are wrong even for two days ahead. And AGWmers ask the world community to create economic hara kiri, and condemn the third world to starvation, on such unscientific arguments.
I just extended my experience to a logical falling of the scales from prof. Lewis’ eyes.
It is more likely that we are looking at some kind of age related dementia.
Well, I am amazed that you can look and reason in coherent sentences through your early onset dementia. Science is great on medications . I hope you are not on a hara kiri advisory committee.
I can do ad homs as well as anybody.
eadler you are funny, you tell me to get facts straight then point me to a MSN article to back up your ideas, as far as it is possible to tell I have my facts straight but you as a global warming troll do not, I could give you facts all day but you would be blind to them as they do not fit in with your belief system. BTW what colour is the sky in your universe?
anna v says:
October 15, 2010 at 9:33 pm
@ur momisugly eadler
===================
Well said, Anna. There is no doubt….you would [as we say in America] eat this guy for lunch.
And eadler….stop the ad homs and show a little bit of respect.
It really is pathetic…that you would stoop so low to say such things. Definitely grasping for straws.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:54 pm
The fact that a scientific theory has adherents doesn’t prove that it is false and people only are in it for the money. This is one of the more stupid arguments put up by skeptics, when their scientific objections to AGW are shown to be false.
===================================
Who put gunpowder in this guy’s Kibbles & Bits?
Not only is it lacking in basic logic… the rude, screeching chicken little tone…makes things worse.
It’s worse than we thought.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Lewis was attacking the integrity of the APS and the researchers who come to the conclusion that AGW is a real phenomenon and threatens human society with real harm. This is an ad hominem attack, accusing the people who run the APS of fraud. One ad hominem attack deserves another.” – EAdler, October 15, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Pointing out the lack of integrity of a person or a group of people is NOT an ad hominem attack when the things being said are facts and what occurred.
The accusations of fraud is a perfectly reasonable assessment of the APS society leadership as spelled out by Lewis’s well stated explanation of their alleged fraud.
Retaliating for an ad hominem attack with one in kind is not the best idea EAdler, in fact I’d advise against it if you really wish to be taken seriously. Revkin going into ad hominem personal attack mode again Lewis is not called for since Lewis was stating facts of the matter in question.
The appropriate response to an ad hominem personal attack is to rebuke the person by (1) pointing out that they used an ad hominem personal attack, and (2) dissecting their ad hominem personal attack point by point showing how each point is mistaken and uncalled for. Much like I’m rebuking you EAdler for your silly and misguided notion that an Eye for an Eye is a wise policy. The point of a rebuke is so that the person being rebuked can see the error of their behavior and correct it back in line, in this context, with the highest standards of conduct consistent with the Philosophy of Science.
If you actually paid any respect to the Philosophy of Science you would know that Criticism of Science claims is an essential aspect of science and that Lewis is well within appropriate behaviors consistent with the Philosophy of Science.
“Nullis in verba. Take no one’s word for it.” – Motto of The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge since circa November 1660.
“Take no one’s word for it, not even the Royal Society’s.” – revised moto by pwl, to be applied to the Royal Society itself, circa October 2010.
“I’m trying to find out NOT how Nature could be, but how Nature IS.” – Richard Feynman
“Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection, upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence.” – James Randi
“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” – Thomas Henry Huxley
eadler says:
October 14, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Looks like the makings of a consipracy to bully the editorial staff of a journal to me. It’s not the only instance of conspiracy fact in the letters and I’m sure it fueled some of the good professor’s revulsion as it did mine.
If it’s conspiracy theory you want then look no further than here:
Hal Lewis has integrity. What I got from his letter of resignation is that APS has become the cheerleading team for Deutschebank, BP and … Obama. oops I mean Chu-leaders.
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:42 pm
The fact that you agree with his opinion does not demonstrate a mastery of science on his part.
eadler, your own “Thou shalt remain as far behind the curve as possible” is not a way to master much of anything.
anna v says:
October 15, 2010 at 9:33 pm
I suspect the two highlighted portions apply to the majority of scientists. It takes a lot of due diligence outside one’s area of expertise to fairly assess the facts surrounding the atmospheric science. Scientists are acccustomed to accepting the data and conclusions of other scientists (usually, unless something akin to perpetual motion is being claimed) when the work is in another discipline.
Interestingly physicists, mathematicians, and engineers seem to smell a rat the quickest as they’ll usually, with little effort, spot something very questionable and fundamental in the CAGW hypothesis.
The trust in science is, I think, not as strong with the general public and they (at least the older ones) are usually not naive about the politics. They smell a rat as soon as someone tries to use science to frighten them into giving up more money and control over their lives for what appears to them to be more like a green religion instead of green technology.
eadler says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Well, duh!
Lewis was one of three of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s graduate students when the atomic bomb was being developed during WWII. They followed him everywhere. Most of his work then and in the following decades has been in that area, is highly classified, and compartmentalized on a need-to-know basis. After that it appears he continued mostly dong classified work in risk assessment for the US federal government with the very highest of security clearances.
Matt says:
October 15, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Lewis didn’t resign because he thinks climate science is wrong. He resigned because open scientific debate on the subject was denied by the APS controlling body in direct contravention of APS by-laws.
OT but Stoat Connolley thinks he’s still in? from his site:
At last your out of Wikipedia lets hope its permanent
[But I’m not. You’re thinking of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FClimate_change I believe -W]
Posted by: Emerita | October 14, 2010 9:24 PM
Here is your test and an analysis of the results.
There are 2 topics:
a) psychobabble ‘perception’
b) ‘science’
The topic of discussion is ‘perception(s)’ yet participants insist that they are were talking about the ‘science’.
It’s like watching a train wreak in slow motion.
Regarding Andrew Revkin’s rebuttal, Yes, 20 years can and often does make a huge difference in how people see the world and it’s various issues. Some might even say that’s called maturity and wisdom. You know the old saying “If I only knew then what I know now.”