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

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

His intemperate verbiage, and his use of the words scam and pseudoscience
indicates that he wants the APS to agree with his opinion.  So the real
issue is that the APS has made statements that he doesn't agree with.  He
framed it as a lack of investigation, but the wording implied very strongly
that the complaint was actually about the issue of agreeing with his stance.
The words scam and pseudoscience telegraphed his real issue.  I think most
people got it.  His letter is strikingly similar to the sorts of things that
conspiracy theorists write, so it is designed to inflame the anti global
warming crowd.

Using name calling is very unlikely to change the situation.  Also the
charges that the APS is financially benefiting are obviously not true.
Again this type of charge is routinely used by conspiracy theorists.
Climatology research is worthy of funding whatever the findings.  Indeed the
drumbeat from the anti crowd argues that the global warming issue needs more
research.  The only charge that he could substantiate was BPs support of one
chair person in the APS.  I would think that BP would want negative results
in light of their dependence on oil profits, so this is a very weak charge.
So what evidence is there that the APS made their statement because of
financial reasons?

Looking at his reply to the APS reply his objection to the phrase "climate
disruption" is very disingenuous considering his phrases scam and
pseudoscience.

Has he published papers on global warming???  If so has anyone on this list
read them?  Since he has such a strong opinion we need to know his reasoning
to be able to judge it.  I did not see any references to what evidence he
has that global warming is a scam.

In all he has smeared all scientists by his intemperance, and given
ammunition to the anti-science crowd.  But it is a tempest in a tea pot, and
with more research and evidence we will eventually know the truth.  But by
then, if the climate research is correct, we may not be able to avert major
disruptions and disasters.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


> You seem to get it.  Thank you for your post.  The group that is
> petitioning the APS feels that the APS
> has made no effort to examine the science before it has made its public
> statement.  It wants an open
> discussion/investigation before a statement is made.  It isn't right that
> a group of scientists should rely
> on another group's opinion to take such a stance on such an important
> issue without serious
> deliberations.