Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS



Hi

You will notice that Lewis did not claim any of the specific science was wrong (Does he disagree that there is a human caused 35% increase in CO2 in the last 200 yrs? Did he disagree that the ice caps are melting? Exactly what SCIENCE does he disagree with?). You will also notice he is not a climate scientist. Why should we re-peer review papers that are already peer reviewed by experts in the field?

The Union of Concerned Scientists documents $16 million given by Exxon-Mobil to 43 different anti-climate groups over a 7 year period. IPCC scientist are not paid! (They get flights and hotel but no salary.) If there really are trillions of dollars involved in climate debates I will wager it is coming from the fossil fuel industry which has a lot to lose (probably trillions) if we switch to alternative energy.

Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway in 'Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' do a pretty convincing job in claiming that a small handful of scientists (a dozen or so) with roots that go back to building the bomb have been instrumental in confusing people about tobacco, second hand smoke, acid rain, the ozone hole, and now global warming. Who are these people and why are they doing this? It is worth a read.

kyle

On 10/11/10 11:46 AM, phys-l-request@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu wrote:
Send Phys-l mailing list submissions to
phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
phys-l-request@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
phys-l-owner@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Phys-l digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. looking for good Circuit Diagram software for the Mac
(Michael Barr)
2. Re: looking for good Circuit Diagram software for the Mac
(Marty Weiss)
3. Re: looking for good Circuit Diagram software for the Mac
(curtis osterhoudt)
4. Re: Coalesing drops (Paul Doherty)
5. Re: Coalesing drops (ludwik kowalski)
6. Re: looking for good Circuit Diagram software for the Mac
(Paul Lulai)
7. Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (Strickert, Rick)
8. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (Price Daniel S.)
9. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (marx@phy.ilstu.edu)
10. Re: Coalesing drops (Bernard Cleyet)
11. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (A. John Mallinckrodt)
12. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (Dr. Richard Tarara)
13. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (marx@phy.ilstu.edu)
14. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (LaMontagne, Bob)
15. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (brian whatcott)
16. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (Jack Uretsky)
17. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (Dr. Richard Tarara)
18. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (A. John Mallinckrodt)
19. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (LaMontagne, Bob)
20. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (A. John Mallinckrodt)
21. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (Strickert, Rick)
22. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (John Clement)
23. Re: Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS (LaMontagne, Bob)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 07:44:29 -0500
From: "Strickert, Rick"<rstrickert@signaturescience.com>
Subject: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: Forum for Physics Educators<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<9570FCB2DD870B4692083A08D14B9C7EF229E0E982@ss-mail.corp.signaturescience.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, and co-founder and former Chairman of JASON, submitted his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan, Jr., President of the American Physical Society (posted at http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html).

His reason? Excerpted from his letter:

"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.

"....I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation."

In addition to the bull-in-the-china-shop issue of GW/CC, physics educators may be asked by their students the question of how a scientist deals publicly with a scientific position he holds when he knows it will receive strong (political) opposition.

As I recall, Galileo Galilei did have a problem with the authorities when he adamantly took a scientific stand. Of course, Nicolas Copernicus was on his deathbed when he finally had his heliocentric theory published. And Ole Roemer's claim of the finite speed of light was never widely accepted until well after his death.


Rick Strickert
Austin, TX
















------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:15:08 -0600
From: "Price Daniel S."<dprice@jeffco.k12.co.us>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: "Forum for Physics Educators"<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<02806BDC91CA4848A5DF52FF55B945110F404591@EXCHANGE.jeffco.schools>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

The term "pseudoscientific" having its usual meaning: "a scientific conclusion that one happens to dislike".




________________________________

From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu on behalf of Strickert, Rick
Sent: Mon 11-Oct-10 6:44 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS



Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, and co-founder and former Chairman of JASON, submitted his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan, Jr., President of the American Physical Society (posted at http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html).

His reason? Excerpted from his letter:

"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.

"....I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation."

In addition to the bull-in-the-china-shop issue of GW/CC, physics educators may be asked by their students the question of how a scientist deals publicly with a scientific position he holds when he knows it will receive strong (political) opposition.

As I recall, Galileo Galilei did have a problem with the authorities when he adamantly took a scientific stand. Of course, Nicolas Copernicus was on his deathbed when he finally had his heliocentric theory published. And Ole Roemer's claim of the finite speed of light was never widely accepted until well after his death.


Rick Strickert
Austin, TX














_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l



------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:39:22 -0500
From: marx@phy.ilstu.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Message-ID:<4CB2E95A.20566.6AC62D@marx.phy.ilstu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Daniel,

You are not correct in your assessment. The APS showed no interest in examining the science in this
matter. Their decision was/is solely based on politics, as were the so-called investigations into
ClimateGate. Most, unbiased scientists that take the time to examine all of the documents and the
peer-reviewed scientific literature (not the IPCC reports) will arrive at the same conclusion as Professor
Lewis. The problem is that most scientists have difficulty imagining that the so-called climate experts
have engaged in poor quality scientific work, even to the point of fabricating data. There is an effort
underway to significantly alter the land-based measurements and data sets to get the desired results.
None of this is to deny that climate change is an ongoiong process, but rather a demand that higher
standards for data collection and analysis be used and that the entire process be transparent. We
have a huge number of people engaged in quasi-scientific work to promote a political agenda, rather
than being engaged in truth-seeking.




On 11 Oct 2010 at 9:15, Price Daniel S. wrote:

The term "pseudoscientific" having its usual meaning: "a scientific conclusion that one happens to dislike".




________________________________

From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu on behalf of Strickert, Rick
Sent: Mon 11-Oct-10 6:44 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS



Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, and co-founder and former Chairman of JASON, submitted his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan, Jr., President of the American Physical Society (posted at http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html).

His reason? Excerpted from his letter:

"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.

"....I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation."

In addition to the bull-in-the-china-shop issue of GW/CC, physics educators may be asked by their students the question of how a scientist deals publicly with a scientific position he holds when he knows it will receive strong (political) opposition.

As I recall, Galileo Galilei did have a problem with the authorities when he adamantly took a scientific stand. Of course, Nicolas Copernicus was on his deathbed when he finally had his heliocentric theory published. And Ole Roemer's claim of the finite speed of light was never widely accepted until well after his death.


Rick Strickert
Austin, TX














_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l






------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:47:16 -0700
From: Bernard Cleyet<bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Coalesing drops
To: Forum for Physics Educators<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Cc: Bryan Mumford<bryan@bmumford.com>, Paul Doherty
<dohertypm@gmail.com>, "T.K.Wang& Mary Brooks"
<tkmary@dslextreme.com>
Message-ID:<10A27CCE-B227-434D-BBA6-2604C7CEA3E1@redshift.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Two squirters, handles insulated!, electrified by low current HV P/Ss.

bc


On 2010, Oct 11, , at 05:32, ludwik kowalski wrote:

Ability to observe electrically charged drops, preferably uniformly charged, would be very helpful to those who teach nuclear physics. Yes, I am thinking about spontaneous fission, described by the liquid drop model. Droplets of electrolyte, when charged, are not charged uniformly.

Ludwik
= = = = = = = = = = = =


On Oct 10, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Paul Doherty wrote:

BC

Check out the new exhibit at the Exploratorium.
At the exhibit there is a 15 cm diameter upward vertical airflow.
Visitors create water drops and drop them into the airflow.

Drops of a certain size, about 5 mm, are at trerminal velocity in
the airstream and float at a constant altitude.

Squirt a couple of drops and when they collide and coalesce the
resulting larger drop explodes in a spray of small droplets.

I'll try to get images and video.

Paul D



On Oct 10, 2010, at 12:13 AM, Bernard Cleyet wrote:

Bob!

(delayed by trip to birthday dinner a day away, not mine.)

Yes! You're correct. I forgot about the buoyant force, which is
negligible in this case, and the g force is ~ to the cube of the
radius, while the drag is only prop. to the square.***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes'_law

doesn't apply.

hyperphysics has done the work for me:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/airfri2.html#c5


for 2 mm and 5 mm drops their terminal speeds are v. ~ 6.4 and 10.1
m/s.

I cheated and found in Eisberg and Lerner (I've seen it elsewhere
also.) the formula for the position (time) for v^2 drag.


The formulae, as I graphed for two and 5 mm D drops, is on my site.

http://www.cleyet.org/images/Drops%20at%20the%20Exploratorium/

Here's the generic:

X = (1/gamma) (Ln[exp(sqrt(gamma*g)*t )+ exp(sqrt(gamma*g)*t)]/2)

gamma = drag factor / m = 0.5* density (air) * cross section(Pi *
R^2) * coefficient (sphere ~0.5) / density * [(4/3) Pi * R^3]

this reduces to ~ 2.25E-4 / r

I pray no error. The equations for 2 mm and 5 mm diameter are
part of the titles of the graphs. They were generated by the
function feature in Kaleidograph. I extracted the data it created
and subtracted the positions. As one can see if dropped ~ 10 cm
apart after v.~ 600 ms the five mm one will catch up. This is
after falling about five feet.



*** what happens when ones mind's eye model is incomplete.

bc no experience w/ dropping, so doesn't know if practical.



On 2010, Oct 08, , at 19:25, LaMontagne, Bob wrote:

Just curious - what do you mean by "The smaller will catch up and
likely coalesce instead of shatter."? My understanding is that
the fall speed of droplets is proportional to the square root of
their radii. Don't larger drops catch up with smaller ones?

Bob at P
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
Ludwik

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html




_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:44:25 -0700
From: "A. John Mallinckrodt"<ajm@csupomona.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: "marx@phy.ilstu.edu"<marx@phy.ilstu.edu>, Forum for Physics
Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<DF757CD198829A419843E1FA92B592B10BD10CDE@EXCH02.win.csupomona.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

... as if there were no political--more precisely economic--interests informing the anti climate change forces, which are, interestingly enough, confined not merely to the right wing, but almost exclusively the right wing *in America* (see http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20101009_9888.php)

Another item worth considering:

The Montford Delusion
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of marx@phy.ilstu.edu [marx@phy.ilstu.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 8:39 AM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS

Daniel,

You are not correct in your assessment. The APS showed no interest in examining the science in this
matter. Their decision was/is solely based on politics, as were the so-called investigations into
ClimateGate. Most, unbiased scientists that take the time to examine all of the documents and the
peer-reviewed scientific literature (not the IPCC reports) will arrive at the same conclusion as Professor
Lewis. The problem is that most scientists have difficulty imagining that the so-called climate experts
have engaged in poor quality scientific work, even to the point of fabricating data. There is an effort
underway to significantly alter the land-based measurements and data sets to get the desired results.
None of this is to deny that climate change is an ongoiong process, but rather a demand that higher
standards for data collection and analysis be used and that the entire process be transparent. We
have a huge number of people engaged in quasi-scientific work to promote a political agenda, rather
than being engaged in truth-seeking.

------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:01:16 -0400
From: "Dr. Richard Tarara"<rtarara@saintmarys.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: "Forum for Physics Educators"<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:<B4AEF92A9DDC44CE9CB257FC308A31AE@saintmarys.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original

Plenty of political/economic influences to go around, but the important
question remains as to the validity of the SCIENCE being used to
support/disprove the human-induced global warming hypothesis. Currently the
operative science is overwhelmingly from the supporters of the hypothesis,
so that is the science that should be under the most scrutiny. There are
clearly some 'reputable' scientists who don't think the science is
completely valid. We should not dismiss such. Personally, I've looked at
the criticisms about temperature reporting stations--both those still active
and those that were removed from the data used to determine global
temperature, and there certainly appears to be some serious problems there.
;-(

Rick

***************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN
rtarara@saintmarys.edu
******************************
Free Physics Software
Multi-resolutions updates to most of my software will be appearing over the
next months.
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
*******************************


----- Original Message -----
From: "A. John Mallinckrodt"<ajm@csupomona.edu>
To:<marx@phy.ilstu.edu>; "Forum for Physics Educators"
<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS


... as if there were no political--more precisely economic--interests
informing the anti climate change forces, which are, interestingly enough,
confined not merely to the right wing, but almost exclusively the right
wing *in America* (see
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20101009_9888.php)

Another item worth considering:

The Montford Delusion
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of
marx@phy.ilstu.edu [marx@phy.ilstu.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 8:39 AM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS

Daniel,

You are not correct in your assessment. The APS showed no interest in
examining the science in this
matter. Their decision was/is solely based on politics, as were the
so-called investigations into
ClimateGate. Most, unbiased scientists that take the time to examine all
of the documents and the
peer-reviewed scientific literature (not the IPCC reports) will arrive at
the same conclusion as Professor
Lewis. The problem is that most scientists have difficulty imagining that
the so-called climate experts
have engaged in poor quality scientific work, even to the point of
fabricating data. There is an effort
underway to significantly alter the land-based measurements and data sets
to get the desired results.
None of this is to deny that climate change is an ongoiong process, but
rather a demand that higher
standards for data collection and analysis be used and that the entire
process be transparent. We
have a huge number of people engaged in quasi-scientific work to promote a
political agenda, rather
than being engaged in truth-seeking.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:39:49 -0500
From: marx@phy.ilstu.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Message-ID:<4CB30595.18504.D90AFC@marx.phy.ilstu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

As scientists, we must insist that the climate scientists are doing good science and that their
interpretations are consistent with results that can be obtained from the best available data.? We have
an obligation to closely examine methods and data to ensure that it is correct. This has largely not
been the case to date, with few exceptions.

It takes a lot of time and effort to do a serious examination of the peer-reviewed literature, so this
cannot be done by anyone simply taking a cursory look at a few graphs and making a determination
from them.

There has been much political rhetoric on both sides of this issue, but the scientists that have
petitioned the APS are asking for a truly scientific discussion of the methods and data to make a
proper assessment that the community of physicists can be sure is not politically biased, but rather
based on well established scientific methods.






On 11 Oct 2010 at 9:44, A. John Mallinckrodt wrote:

... as if there were no political--more precisely economic--interests informing the anti climate change forces, which are, interestingly enough, confined not merely to the
right wing, but almost exclusively the right wing *in America* (see
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20101009_9888.php)
Another item worth considering:

The Montford Delusion
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnotphysics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of marx@phy.ilstu.edu [marx@phy.ilstu.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 8:39 AM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS

Daniel,

You are not correct in your assessment. The APS showed no interest in examining the science in this
matter. Their decision was/is solely based on politics, as were the so-called investigations into
ClimateGate. Most, unbiased scientists that take the time to examine all of the documents and the
peer-reviewed scientific literature (not the IPCC reports) will arrive at the same conclusion as Professor
Lewis. The problem is that most scientists have difficulty imagining that the so-called climate experts
have engaged in poor quality scientific work, even to the point of fabricating data. There is an effort
underway to significantly alter the land-based measurements and data sets to get the desired results.
None of this is to deny that climate change is an ongoiong process, but rather a demand that higher
standards for data collection and analysis be used and that the entire process be transparent. We
have a huge number of people engaged in quasi-scientific work to promote a political agenda, rather
than being engaged in truth-seeking.

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1136 / Virus Database: 422/3190 - Release Date: 10/11/10





------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:10:23 -0400
From: "LaMontagne, Bob"<RLAMONT@providence.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: Forum for Physics Educators<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<417F573DD2969E48B8E33D1D5ED8DE7A631FEDFC4D@EXCHMBXCL.providence.col>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Fascinating - I teach an occasional course on science vs. pseudoscience and have never come across this snarky definition.

Bob at PC

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Price Daniel S. [dprice@jeffco.k12.co.us]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 11:15 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS

The term "pseudoscientific" having its usual meaning: "a scientific conclusion that one happens to dislike".




________________________________

From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu on behalf of Strickert, Rick
Sent: Mon 11-Oct-10 6:44 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS



Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, and co-founder and former Chairman of JASON, submitted his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan, Jr., President of the American Physical Society (posted at http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html).

His reason? Excerpted from his letter:

"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.

"....I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation."

In addition to the bull-in-the-china-shop issue of GW/CC, physics educators may be asked by their students the question of how a scientist deals publicly with a scientific position he holds when he knows it will receive strong (political) opposition.

As I recall, Galileo Galilei did have a problem with the authorities when he adamantly took a scientific stand. Of course, Nicolas Copernicus was on his deathbed when he finally had his heliocentric theory published. And Ole Roemer's claim of the finite speed of light was never widely accepted until well after his death.


Rick Strickert
Austin, TX














_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:52:02 -0500
From: brian whatcott<betwys1@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Message-ID:<4CB35CD2.400@sbcglobal.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

I would very much like to hear some evaluation of the "Trillions of
Dollars" that have completely turned the heads of the global climate
change proponents.

As far as I know, there are two major sources of research funding.
Big government and Big Business.
Big Government seems very luke warm about combating this effect.
And Big (US) Business seems to be positively horrified by the thought:
coal, oil, manufacturing.

The Republicans seem to be accurately reflecting the interests of their
sponsors: they are no less firm in saying No on this topic that on the
many others that the elected congress has proposed.
The Democrats in turn notice that jobs are at risk too. So just who is
providing the trillions? The Chinese? Don't think so.

Brian W

On 10/11/2010 11:44 AM, A. John Mallinckrodt wrote:
... as if there were no political--more precisely economic--interests informing the anti climate change forces, which are, interestingly enough, confined not merely to the right wing, but almost exclusively the right wing *in America* (see http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20101009_9888.php)

Another item worth considering:

The Montford Delusion
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of marx@phy.ilstu.edu [marx@phy.ilstu.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 8:39 AM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS

Daniel,

You are not correct in your assessment. The APS showed no interest in examining the science in this
matter. Their decision was/is solely based on politics, as were the so-called investigations into
ClimateGate. Most, unbiased scientists that take the time to examine all of the documents and the
peer-reviewed scientific literature (not the IPCC reports) will arrive at the same conclusion as Professor
Lewis. The problem is that most scientists have difficulty imagining that the so-called climate experts
have engaged in poor quality scientific work, even to the point of fabricating data. There is an effort
underway to significantly alter the land-based measurements and data sets to get the desired results.
None of this is to deny that climate change is an ongoiong process, but rather a demand that higher
standards for data collection and analysis be used and that the entire process be transparent. We
have a huge number of people engaged in quasi-scientific work to promote a political agenda, rather
than being engaged in truth-seeking.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l



------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:08:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jack Uretsky<jlu@hep.anl.gov>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: betwys1@sbcglobal.net, Forum for Physics Educators
<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:<alpine.LRH.2.00.1010111405340.14831@theory.hep.anl.gov>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

Epithets do not improve understanding.
"Big government" is one of your colleagues or former colleagues sitting at
a desk in the Department of Energy.
Regards,
Jack

"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley




On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, brian whatcott wrote:

I would very much like to hear some evaluation of the "Trillions of
Dollars" that have completely turned the heads of the global climate
change proponents.

As far as I know, there are two major sources of research funding.
Big government and Big Business.
Big Government seems very luke warm about combating this effect.
And Big (US) Business seems to be positively horrified by the thought:
coal, oil, manufacturing.

The Republicans seem to be accurately reflecting the interests of their
sponsors: they are no less firm in saying No on this topic that on the
many others that the elected congress has proposed.
The Democrats in turn notice that jobs are at risk too. So just who is
providing the trillions? The Chinese? Don't think so.

Brian W

On 10/11/2010 11:44 AM, A. John Mallinckrodt wrote:
... as if there were no political--more precisely economic--interests informing the anti climate change forces, which are, interestingly enough, confined not merely to the right wing, but almost exclusively the right wing *in America* (see http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20101009_9888.php)

Another item worth considering:

The Montford Delusion
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of marx@phy.ilstu.edu [marx@phy.ilstu.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 8:39 AM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS

Daniel,

You are not correct in your assessment. The APS showed no interest in examining the science in this
matter. Their decision was/is solely based on politics, as were the so-called investigations into
ClimateGate. Most, unbiased scientists that take the time to examine all of the documents and the
peer-reviewed scientific literature (not the IPCC reports) will arrive at the same conclusion as Professor
Lewis. The problem is that most scientists have difficulty imagining that the so-called climate experts
have engaged in poor quality scientific work, even to the point of fabricating data. There is an effort
underway to significantly alter the land-based measurements and data sets to get the desired results.
None of this is to deny that climate change is an ongoiong process, but rather a demand that higher
standards for data collection and analysis be used and that the entire process be transparent. We
have a huge number of people engaged in quasi-scientific work to promote a political agenda, rather
than being engaged in truth-seeking.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


------------------------------

Message: 17
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:16:01 -0400
From: "Dr. Richard Tarara"<rtarara@saintmarys.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To:<betwys1@sbcglobal.net>, "Forum for Physics Educators"
<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:<7754BC6079664CC1BCAF4796B79402F8@saintmarys.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original

There are trillions at stake--but in both directions, loss and gain.
Example: Right now there is about a trillion dollars tied up in coal-fired
electrical generating plants in the U.S. If drastic action is taken, say a
mandate to close all of those plants over the next 10 years, then the cost
of replacing them--say with wind for example--would be on the order of $3
trillion (due to the 30% operating efficiency of wind generators). Somebody
would profit hugely, but of course the current utilities, their workers, and
especially the coal miners and the railroads would be huge losers.

The only direct monetary incentive I can see for the researchers is simply
their research funds. How much gets spent if the climate is simply doing
its own thing independent of our influence? However, I'm not sure I buy
that as enough incentive to 'cook the books.'

It has been reported, but I don't have verification at hand, that Al Gore
has gotten very rich over the past 10 years. If true, that provides some
evidence that there is a lot of money to be had by being VERY 'GREEN' on the
topic.

Basically though, the money aspect here amounts to a redistribution of
wealth. [Gee, that seems to be some kind of theme! ;-) ]

Rick

----- Original Message -----
From: "brian whatcott"<betwys1@sbcglobal.net>


I would very much like to hear some evaluation of the "Trillions of
Dollars" that have completely turned the heads of the global climate
change proponents.

As far as I know, there are two major sources of research funding.
Big government and Big Business.
Big Government seems very luke warm about combating this effect.
And Big (US) Business seems to be positively horrified by the thought:
coal, oil, manufacturing.

The Republicans seem to be accurately reflecting the interests of their
sponsors: they are no less firm in saying No on this topic that on the
many others that the elected congress has proposed.
The Democrats in turn notice that jobs are at risk too. So just who is
providing the trillions? The Chinese? Don't think so.

Brian W



------------------------------

Message: 18
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:18:25 -0700
From: "A. John Mallinckrodt"<ajm@csupomona.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: "marx@phy.ilstu.edu"<marx@phy.ilstu.edu>, Forum for Physics
Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<DF757CD198829A419843E1FA92B592B10BD10CE1@EXCH02.win.csupomona.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

As scientists, we must insist that the climate scientists are doing good
science and that their interpretations are consistent with results that
can be obtained from the best available data. We have an obligation
to closely examine methods and data to ensure that it is correct.
"We" don't have that level of obligation; the climate research community does, both in evaluating research proposals for funding and peer reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication. This is the way science works and it works very well. I don't see any good reason to believe that it should be any less effective in this area.

This has largely not been the case to date, with few exceptions.
What's the evidence for this assertion?

It takes a lot of time and effort to do a serious examination of the
peer-reviewed literature, so this cannot be done by anyone simply taking
a cursory look at a few graphs and making a determination from them.
Precisely. It has to be done by experts as always and even the experts rarely come to a consensus. Nevertheless, science generally moves *toward* consensus, driven by accumulating data, precisely as has been the case in the climate change community.

There has been much political rhetoric on both sides of this issue, but
the scientists that have petitioned the APS are asking for a truly scientific
discussion of the methods and data to make a proper assessment that
the community of physicists can be sure is not politically biased, but
rather based on well established scientific methods.
As if those on the other side of the debate aren't asking for a "truly scientific discussion ..."? Of course, we want to make sure that the results are not politically biased, but don't forget that that's a two-edged sword and no amount of openness and disclosure and transparency will prevent those with powerful political (and even more powerful economic) agendas from saying that it isn't enough.

You want transparency? How about this: Would it be too much to ask those petitioning the APS to stop refusing to identify *their* funding sources?

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

------------------------------

Message: 19
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:54:55 -0400
From: "LaMontagne, Bob"<RLAMONT@providence.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: Forum for Physics Educators<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>,
"marx@phy.ilstu.edu"<marx@phy.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID:
<417F573DD2969E48B8E33D1D5ED8DE7A631FEDFC4F@EXCHMBXCL.providence.col>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I find it fascination that the discussion almost immediately turns to "the other side was paid off by big ______".

Has anyone read anything that might indicate that Dr. Lewis was paid off by either side? If not, then most of this discussion is "human induced hot air".

Bob at PC

------------------------------

Message: 20
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:14:24 -0700
From: "A. John Mallinckrodt"<ajm@csupomona.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: Forum for Physics Educators<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<DF757CD198829A419843E1FA92B592B10BD10CE2@EXCH02.win.csupomona.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Bob LaMontagne writes:

I find it fascination that the discussion almost immediately turns to
"the other side was paid off by big ______".

Has anyone read anything that might indicate that Dr. Lewis was
paid off by either side? If not, then most of this discussion is
"human induced hot air".
I'm not sure if this was motivated by the question I asked, but that question wasn't based on hot air. Montford (a long time climate change skeptic), whom Lewis cites approvingly, received ?3000 for his enquiry into the CRU email story from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group that is opposed to climate mitigation efforts and which steadfastly refuses to reveal the source of its funding.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

------------------------------

Message: 21
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:32:32 -0500
From: "Strickert, Rick"<rstrickert@signaturescience.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: Forum for Physics Educators<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<9570FCB2DD870B4692083A08D14B9C7EF229E0EC7B@ss-mail.corp.signaturescience.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

To no surprise, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on GW/CC or even on what steps have been taken or need to be taken on which to base a consensus or reasonable assessment.

What physicists and physics educators might address, here and to their students, is the action that Prof. Lewis took - releasing a letter given his reasons for resigning from the APS.

Presuming he was scientifically honest to himself and not "paid off" or mentally incompetent (documentation of which should be included in any such allegation), was Prof. Lewis' resignation a reasonable thing for a scientist to do given the conclusion reached from his assessment of the facts?

If the opposite situation were to have occurred, where Prof. Lewis would have argued his conclusion that the APS's dismissing GW/CC without scientific justification was a scam, would a similar letter of resignation from the APS still be reasonable?

Should a physicist weigh the certainty of his politically-sensitive scientific assessment being correct, and publicly disclosing it, in proportion to any tenure he is anticipating, the amount of grant-receiving career he has left, or perhaps the reputation he has earned to date?


Rick Strickert
Austin, TX








------------------------------

Message: 22
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:49:43 -0500
From: "John Clement"<clement@hal-pc.org>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: "'Forum for Physics Educators'"
<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:<EC20955A8FFD4F8D8244BC19FFC2D544@ClementPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Of course pseudoscientific generally refers to the fringe that doesn't like
the current scientific models. After all the body of science is determined
by the majority consensus of scientists. That can and does change with
time, but until it changes the minority is opinion is either a deprecated
model, or a fringe pseudoscientific model.

"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.

This analogy really doesn't work. Galileo and Copernicus were opposed by
the religious and conservative "orthodoxy". They had new ideas that were
opposed. Global warming is a new idea, and it is opposed by both
conservatives and fundamentalists. But hey, the connection is in the eye of
the beholder. Actually the big money is against global warming. I wonder
what the ratio is of scientific climate research funding to industrial
advertising opposing that research.

There are schools which are promoting the idea that oil is not a fossil
fuel, and that it is actively being made in the Earth. There is a whole
fringe of oilmen who believe this nonsense. So lets get down to the really
pseudoscientific ideas.

As I recall, Galileo Galilei did have a problem with the authorities when
he adamantly took a scientific stand. Of course, Nicolas Copernicus was
on his deathbed when he finally had his heliocentric theory published.
And Ole Roemer's claim of the finite speed of light was never widely
accepted until well after his death.
This unfortunate event may just play into the hands of the Creationists by
allowing them to claim that science is biased and illogical. They would
call evolution pseudoscientific. I also think it is unprofessional to claim
that other branches of science are unprofessional. This has been used too
often to kill legitimate inquiry. OTOH physics is generally considered so
remote and forbidding that a tempest in the APS may not make much of a
ripple in the general debate.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX



------------------------------

Message: 23
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:59:37 -0400
From: "LaMontagne, Bob"<RLAMONT@providence.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS
To: Forum for Physics Educators<phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<417F573DD2969E48B8E33D1D5ED8DE7A631FEDFC50@EXCHMBXCL.providence.col>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Pseudoscience has nothing to do with holding an unpopular position outside the current consensus. I wish people would stop stating this as if there were some weighty truth to it. There are specific criteria for pseudoscience: irrefutable arguments, exegesis, non-reproducible data, etc. One can easily show how certain topics like "Bermuda Triangle", Chioropractry, Iridology, etc., meet the criteria. "Popularity" is not one of those criteria.

Bob at PC

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Clement [clement@hal-pc.org]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 4:49 PM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Prof. Hal Lewis resigns from APS

Of course pseudoscientific generally refers to the fringe that doesn't like
the current scientific models. After all the body of science is determined
by the majority consensus of scientists. That can and does change with
time, but until it changes the minority is opinion is either a deprecated
model, or a fringe pseudoscientific model.

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


End of Phys-l Digest, Vol 69, Issue 12
**************************************

--
------------------------------------------
'Before you open your mouth, just remember,
the empty wagon rattles the loudest.'
-- my dad

kyle forinash 812-941-2039
kforinas@ius.edu
http://Physics.ius.edu/
-----------------------------------------