Physics professor resigns over climate “pseudoscience”, according to the Telegraph 9 Oct 2010. Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Harold Lewis, recently resigned from the American Physical Society APS. In his letter to Curtis Callan, Princeton University, President of the Society, he explains his reason: “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 Climate Gate documents, which lay it bare.”

After critiquing the way the APS dealt with the climate change issue he goes on to say: “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 Climate Gate releases make it clear that this is not an academic question.” The complete letter can be read on:

Editorial Comment Lewis’ letter reminds us that science is not done in a pure altruistic enclave, unaffected by politics, economics and social pressures. A lot of scientific research depends on support from government funded agencies, and once an idea, such as man-made global warming, becomes the politically correct belief it can be very difficult to get funding if your research brings up results against it. It is also difficult to get such results published in mainstream journals, and as publishing history is taken into account when assessing applications for grant money, any scientists who go against prevailing views are further disadvantaged. (Ref. politics, philosophy, climate)

Evidence News 27 Oct 2010