Monday, October 11, 2010

More on Global Warming Corruption
Mike Rappaport

A physicist resigns from the American Physical Society (APS) in protest of the corruption of global warming science.  Here is an excerpt from his letter of resignation: 

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.

For more, see this post at Power Line.

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on Global Warming Corruption
Mike Rappaport



Posted by: dearieme | Oct 11, 2010 2:25:54 AM

He does not explain what took him so long.

Posted by: james wilson | Oct 11, 2010 9:33:59 AM

The APS' British counterpart, the Institute of Physics, might be more to Prof. Lewis' liking...

Posted by: Dan Simon | Oct 11, 2010 11:24:58 AM

Not so long ago (in the late '90's), while still a graduate student in molecular biology, I attended a talk by a well-known scientist on recent advances in understanding the relationship between chemical insults on the genome (e.g., inhaled chemicals from cigarette smoking) and the resulting effects on protein structure-function dynamics. After his talk was over he fielded a few questions. One of them was by a Professor Emeritus (who was well into his 70's) in the physiology department who was suspicious of the research and asked: "How can you be sure about this considering the lack of definitive evidence between smoking and lung cancer?" All the researcher could say in response, after being briefly rendered speechless, was: "I think perhaps you are not up to date on the science or the literature." The Professor Emeritus harumped and waved his hand in objection. Now, the Professor Emeritus was highly educated and had a successful career in physiology, but he was no expert in the field of cigarette-derived carcinogens and their effects on protein structure and function. But that didn't stop him from not believing the data. Had he resigned from the AAAS because it refused to form a committee to look into his suspicions that smoking really didn't cause lung cancer, I can't say that I would have been terribly surprised, or alarmed.

Posted by: torreysurfer | Oct 11, 2010 12:55:46 PM

I just finished reading all of Hal Lewis' resignation letter. If you are interested in climate change science, then I suggest you read it too. It is very well-written and made me realize I don't use the word "tendentious" enough. After reading it, ask yourself this: what facts, theories, citations to the scientific literature or results from his own research does Dr. Lewis reference to support his position that climate research constitutes "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist?" I didn't see a single reference. In fact, from the content of the letter, it's not clear to me the guy is a climate scientist at all.

Posted by: torreysurfer | Oct 11, 2010 1:16:06 PM

"In fact, from the content of the letter, it's not clear to me the guy is a climate scientist at all." Indeed, and he probably mocks Astrology, and he's not an astrologer at all. The cheek of it!

Posted by: dearieme | Oct 11, 2010 3:05:09 PM

True enough, I don't believe in ghosts, and I'm not a ghost (as far as I know).

Posted by: Torreysurfer | Oct 11, 2010 5:10:09 PM

A sad fact, which has been shown in innumerable demonstrations, is that a large majority of people will believe virtually anything which the group agrees with unanimously, no matter how ridiculous that thing is deliberately made to be. And that is without being paid to believe.

Global warming is an excellent leveler, because it does not discriminate between the stupid and the very intelligent.

Posted by: james wilson | Oct 11, 2010 7:30:47 PM

James, good point...and thus we have religion.

Posted by: Torreysurfer | Oct 11, 2010 7:38:44 PM

Please tell me you understand that you just correctly described global warming as a religion, fair or faux.

Posted by: james wilson | Oct 11, 2010 9:36:31 PM

I actually agree with you, Torreysurfer, in one respect: the opinion of a single elderly emeritus professor, however distinguished, is easily discounted, in the absence of any other reason for doubt. However, the statement from the Institute of Physics, linked to above, should be more than sufficient to smash the illusion of solid scientific consensus on which your case appears to rest. And once one has passed from "accept the voice of science" to "assess the merits of the conflicting factions as best you can", the scientific arguments for AGW--let alone catastrophic AGW start to look awfully shaky on close inspection. And the shrill attempts of so many AGW advocates to treat a clearly contentious question as if it were a resolutely settled one raise far more suspicions than they allay.

Posted by: Dan Simon | Oct 11, 2010 11:52:24 PM

the GW faction certainly acts like a religion

Posted by: km | Oct 12, 2010 8:21:15 AM

"[P]eople will believe virtually anything which the group agrees with unanimously, no matter how ridiculous that thing is deliberately made to be. And that is without being paid to believe..."

That, in a nutshell, is the essence of religion.

You can *believe* whatever you want to regarding global warming; however, thus far the science and the data support the position that it is happening, and that human activity is substantially responsible for it.

Again, it is worth noting that Hal Lewis cited zero facts, theories, citations to the scientific literature or results from his own research to support his position that global warming research constitutes a "pseudoscientific fraud." If Hal doesn't like the process by which climate change science has progressed, or the process by which climate change deniers have been ignored, then he's entitled to his opinion and his right to resign from the APS. I respect him for his convictions, but it doesn't mean that the science and data support his position.

Posted by: Torreysurfer | Oct 12, 2010 11:30:00 AM

"'[P]eople will believe virtually anything which the group agrees with unanimously, no matter how ridiculous that thing is deliberately made to be. And that is without being paid to believe...'

"That, in a nutshell, is the essence of religion."

That's the essence of religion (in a nutshell)? How about "a comprehensive, shared belief system involving most often the belief in some sort of supernatural or supra-human being, place, or state of mind," or something to that effect? Your quote has nothing to do with religion, except incidentally. It does not describe the "essence" of anything.

I make this point not to sidetrack the discussion, but simply to point out that when you start making over-reaching, sweeping claims about complex subject matters for which you have no regard, you risk making an ass of yourself with sloppy, less-than-thoughtful language. The "science and data" of global climate change is inconclusive. To state categorically that AGW is or is not happening belies false confidence, at best, and outright falsehood driven by bias, at worst. Hal Lewis simply pointed that out, and I note that your dismissal of his criticism for failure to cite data is unsupported by any data of your own - perhaps you, too, are not a bona fide climate scientist? But given that Lewis is a well-respected physicist, and you're an anonymous blog commenter claiming a biology background, I'll value his unsubstantiated assertions over yours for the time being.

Posted by: Jasper | Oct 12, 2010 1:40:35 PM

Torreysurfer - I see a lot of published "science" but I don't see the solidity of that science as to mankind being responsible.

there are lots of 'opps we don't have the original unadjusted data' data, issues with the data sites and models that don't accurately predict what will happen if past real data is entered.

Posted by: km | Oct 12, 2010 2:51:14 PM


Thanks for making my point on religion. "Belief in some sort of supernatural or supra-human being..." requires that a group of people "believe virtually anything ... no matter how ridiculous that thing is..." Religion is based upon, and could not exist without, "belief." In fact, it is the belief in something absent any evidence of its existence that is a requirement for religion.

As for climate change, I never said it was "conclusive." I never "categorically stated" that it was or wasn't happening. I merely pointed out that the science and data overwhelmingly support the positions that it's both (i) happening and (ii) substantially attributable to human activity. Just because a group of people *believe* it's not happening doesn't mean that it isn't. Twenty five percent of adults *believe* a causal relationship exists between vaccines and autism. You won't find evidence for it in the scientific literature, but that doesn't stop people from believing it. I really don't have time to pull all the citations for you (and there are many, many, many, many, but I listed a few links at the bottom of the page just because I know you'll read them and give them serious consideration); however, please feel free to visit any reputable scientific peer-reviewed publication (Science, Nature, etc.) or agency website (WHO, NOAA, NASA, etc.) and search "climate change" or "global warming" and please show me a single article or agency that supports the position that GW is *not* happening or that it's *not* the result of human activity. Seriously, give it a try, and feel free to put links to the articles or websites in the post, then we can all have a look at them and decide for ourselves.

Prosenjit Ghosh and Willi A. Brand, “Stable Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry in Global Climate Change Research,”
International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 228 (August 2003): 1-33 (the evidence that the observed CO2 has been produced by burning fossil fuels and not, for example, volcanoes)

Taro Takahashi, “The Fate of Industrial Carbon Dioxide,” Science 305 (July 2004): 352–353.

Posted by: Torreysurfer | Oct 12, 2010 4:35:07 PM


Please send me a link to such a peer-reviewed scientific article. Thanks.

Posted by: Torreysurfer | Oct 12, 2010 4:36:33 PM

Torreysurfer, did you bother to follow the link I provided? Or does the Institute of Physics not count as a reputable source?

Posted by: Dan Simon | Oct 12, 2010 9:26:37 PM

Thanks for including it. Please explain to me where the IOP cites any facts or other evidence that suggests GW is not occurring or that it is not the result of human activity. The IOP seems more concerned with the process by which the researchers were investigated and transparency of raw data sets used in their research, the disclosure of which I entirely support. Perhaps more telling is that the Science and Technology Committee, upon concluding its investigation, had this to say:

"Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified."

Read the Conclusions and Recommendations for yourself at:

Posted by: torreysurfer | Oct 12, 2010 10:07:51 PM

Torreysurfer, you are correct that the IoP doesn't attempt to demonstrate that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring. However, it does explicitly call into question the reliability of the evidence used to assert that it *is* occurring. Here's the IoP's very first statement on the subject in the above-referenced IoP memorandum:

"The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context."

This and subsequent portions of the IoP memorandum directly contradict the parliamentary committee's conclusions--yet you quoted the latter as if they were a definitive scientific assessment. After all your huffing and puffing about the scientific unassailability of your position, why do you then lend more credence to the scientific judgments of a committee of British MPs than to those of the IoP's scientists?

Posted by: Dan Simon | Oct 13, 2010 6:54:57 AM

"However, it does explicitly call into question the reliability of the evidence used to assert that it *is* occurring"

Dan, I don't know if you are ignorant or are merely trying to persuade those who are. If you are serious about your suspicions regarding AGW, then before you trot out the IOP statement to the House of Commons as evidence that the IOP questions whether GW is occurring, you might want to do just a LITTLE more research. In fact, you don't even have to leave the IOP website to do it. Just read the statement the IOP released on their own website less than a month after their statement to the House of Commons (


"The Institute’s statement [to the House of Commons]...has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming. The Institute’s position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing – and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change. These comments, focused on the scientific process, should not be interpreted to mean that the Institute believes that the science itself is flawed."

In addition, the IOP released an article less than two weeks ago ( that specifically addresses GW as a result of human activity.

It requires a tortured and narrow view, considering all of the available information, to conclude that the IOP is in any way skeptical of global warming science as a whole. But like I've said, you can *believe* whatever you want.

Posted by: Torreysurfer | Oct 13, 2010 7:58:16 AM

Torreysufer's argument is from the same playbook as David Axlerod's: asked if he had even the slightest evidence for his serious charge that the Chamber of Commerce has accepted foreign donations to direct political adds in this election: Do you have any evidence that they did not?

The hoax of global warming, constructed on eight billion dollars annually of taxpayer money, can be deconstructed by pointing and laughing, and so it is.

Posted by: james wilson | Oct 13, 2010 8:28:08 AM

james, I guess if you don't have the facts in your favor, you have to resort to "pointing and laughing," but that's hardly evidence that GW is a hoax (not to mention all of the evidence that it's not).

Posted by: Torreysurfer | Oct 13, 2010 8:59:14 AM


Here's a clue: a scientist is someone who follows the Scientific Method. Those (like "climate scientists") who deliberately violate the Scientific Method are not scientists.

The evidence that CAGW is a hoax is imbedded in the POLICY of "climate scientists" to create "reports" based on secret data and secret methods. Their POLICY is to refuse to allow independent verification of their studies. When their data and methods are discovered (Mann's poorly hidden "Censored" ftp directory) or forced out (Briffa's Yamal data) it is quickly shown to be based on cherry picked data (Yamal AOD60 for example), phony statistical methods (short centered PCA, 'RE' verification, etc) or blatant data fraud (Upside Down Tijlander).

Actual scientific evidence (historical, geological, and real proxies) show a pronounced Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, and Little Ice Age. But the catastrophe-mongers claim that they never happened. I guess those Viking farms in Greenland that a thousand years ago supported crops and cattle, but today are permafrost, aren't real, are they?

There are two legs to the Imminent! Global! Catastrophe! From! C02! that you warmists believe in: "Unprecedented" 20th century temperatures; and the claim that the Earth's climate is dynamically unstable - that the smallest perturbation in temperature will cause a runaway heating of the atmosphere.

We see that the "unprecedented" claim is based on phony statistics and phony data by the Hockey Team, but is not supported by any real science.

Now, care to discuss your religious belief that the Earth's temperature system is dynamically unstable?

Posted by: Andrew | Oct 13, 2010 7:18:02 PM

For those interested in a primer on the methods and policies of the "Hockey Team" (as they style themselves)and the CAGW crowd, you should read for starters:

But a much better organized and comprehensive treatise on the history behind the phony claims of "unprecedented" temperatures, the Hockey Stick (and Sons of Hockey Stick) is Andrew Montford's book, "The Hockey Stick Illusion". It reads like a really good detective novel, and explains many of the technical aspects (like short-centered Primary Compnents Analysis) in a very readable way.

Then there are the "Climategate" emails. Like UEA's Phil Jones: "I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Posted by: Andrew | Oct 13, 2010 7:50:16 PM