Nobel Laureate Resigns From American Physical Society Over Their Manmade Global Warming Fundamentalism
From Climate Depot:
Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears.
The APS dogma:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate…They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
In his resignation email, Dr. Giaever said:
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.
According to his numbers, the earth’s temperature has risen 0.28%–about one-quarter of one percent–in 150 years. One way to over-dramatize the increase is to use the Fahrenheit scale rather than the absolute values of the Kelvin scale. That way, you could claim a 2.45% temperature increase, nearly 9 times as large as Giaever’s reference.
It’s that easy to spin global warming by manipulating the numbers.
Climate Depot has news on more prominent scientists like Hal Lewis who’ve resigned, and more news on many hundreds of scientists who won’t conform to the global warming Caliphate.
Ok, who didn’t see this coming? I remember, even from 7th grade science class, that all scientific matters are ALWAYS open for discussion. The driving factor of science is SKEPTICISM! In other words, be skeptical about everything, question everything, make them PROVE it. Political rhetoric and propaganda do not constitute proof of anything except the intentions of the propagandist. In my book, America Ascendant, I talk about the scientific method and how this man caused global warming stuff seems to have no basis in that method.
You’re ignoring the huge different between true scientific skepticism and mindless, stubborn denial. Global warming denial shares numerous traits with Creationism, the primary one being that NO evidence will ever be accepted. All new evidence (like this year’s record low Artic ice) will just be lumped into the big NWO conspiracy theory, etc.
Rick Perry is a classic case. He presides over a state that’s experiencing extreme record drought and fires (exactly what’s been predicted via AGW) yet all he can do is pray for rain. What type of person wouldn’t even consider that heat-trapping CO2 is involved? One bought by oil, that’s who. And he’s also a Creationist; big surprise.
Other deniers can call themselves “climate scientists” even though they specialized in entirely different fields. Ivar Giaever is a textbook case of that. He may have savant smarts in certain areas but political ideology can easily override intelligence when money is offered by think tanks. A lot of the deniers tend to be older, cantankerous types. We’ve all seen elderly folks whose minds were once flexible but lost the ability to reason at some point.
Remember the list James Inhofe cobbled together of 600+ scientists, which proved to be full of these same types of people? Same goes for the oft-cited, bogus “30,000 scientists” Oregon Petition put out by SEPP (aka Singer & Seitz; the two Freds of denial). These “experts” can be routinely traced to devious tactics, so who but the devious would trust them?
Jim, what are you talking about? You haven’t made any case at all except to point out that you don’t agree with people who deny the climate change hoax. Your example of the arctic ice is only one example. You’re still missing the point. All I’m asking, and have been asking for years now, is for ONE, just ONE shred of empirical evidence that shows the link between human activity and any type of global climate change. To date I have found NOTHING. There’s nothing there. Nothing at all. So what about the ice in the arctic? Here in SoCal we’ve been having increasingly milder summers for the past few years. Does that mean there’s a global cooling trend? First, your assertions about carbon are completely fallacious. The reason we know it’s not “heat trapping carbon” is because there is no where near enough carbon in the air to make that a factor. I’ll bet you didn’t know that, did you? How much carbon is out there, and what is the effect of that amount of carbon? I suggest you look it up. And don’t give me any BS about “politicizing” these issues. They weren’t issues until the left politicized them. Make no mistake, the climate hoax is political propaganda plain and simple. The is easily identified because politics is the only arena in which it has any real effect. As to climate change, that is a foregone conclusion. Climates ALWAYS change. They always have and they always will. Global warming? Actually, the long term trend for the past ten thousand years or so is one of warming, but that’s only natural when you consider that until that time we were in an ice age. In order for an ice age to end, you kinda have to have warming.
So there’s a physicist who thinks it’s all bunk…
‘Political science’ is the study of government, but I think a 2nd meaning should be added.
A scientist of Principle. A thing many of the lockstep ruck have forgotten.
Hah!
There are damning pictures soon to be released of this so-called “scientist” filling his tank on more than one occasion at an (shudder) Exxon/Mobil station, proof positive he’s just another paid shill in the pocket of evil, racist, homophobic, capitalist-roader Big Oil.
LOL
“One way to over-dramatize the increase is to use the Fahrenheit scale rather than the absolute values of the Kelvin scale. That way, you could claim a 2.45% temperature increase, nearly 9 times as large as Giaever’s reference.”
Yes, those AGW tricksters use the Fahrenheit scale only because they know it will confuse people. I mean, who in the U.S. is familiar with Fahrenheit numbers?
If they were honest wouldn’t they use all three scales so folks could see for themselves what the changes in temperature truly represent?
In fact the Celsius scale and the Kelvin scale are identical except in their starting points. So, Europeans should not be fooled by the magnitude of the temperature changes. Yet they are. Why? AGW fits their ideology.
The reason that he used the Kelvin scale is because that is the scale real scientists use when measuring temperature. It is a measure of the total heat and not just a percentage of the heat. All uses of temperature in Phsics uses Kelvin. If you knew anything about the physical sciences you would already know this.
If I knew how to spell it would have been Physics.
The reason that he used the Kelvin scale is because that is the scale real scientists use when measuring temperature. It is a measure of the total heat and not just a percentage of the heat. All uses of temperature in Physics uses Kelvin. If you knew anything about the physical sciences you would already know this.
Al Gore – Nobel Prize for spewing lies and misinformation in a visual medium.
Barack OAbama – Nobel Prize for being the Wizard’s Apprentice for the aging Barking Moonbat Liberal set.
Dr. Ivar Giaever – ‘shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 with Leo Esaki and Brian Josephson “for their discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in solids”.’
Contrast and Compare.
You’re making narrow, cherry-picked comparisons, as if Giaever is the only scientist on the planet. He was never even a climatologist, and the Nobel Prize is given in different categories, which you falsely lumped together.
Those who fixate on “Al Gore this, Al Gore that” tend to not understand the science very well. Gore is just a spokesman for it. He just made a documentary that echoed the official body of knowledge. Had he never been born, the evidence would be the same.
Again, Ivar Giaever was never a climatologist. So what if he got a Nobel Prize related to electronics? The bulk of his work was done by the early 1960s and it qualifies him for nothing on the topic of AGW. Same goes for most of the other shills.
Look at the bio of S. Fred Singer (a particularly belligerent denier) if you want to see the typical path they took. They achieved something early on, sometimes tangential to AGW, often not, then went into semi-retirement, got picked up as shills by fossil fuel lobbies or “free enterprise” think-tanks, and took money to pretend they were current experts in the field. They are akin to faded celebrities doing infomercials for housing developments.
The Hegemony is already calling him a shill for Big Oil.
One-out-of-six Republican candidates says HPV vaccine causes retardation.
… Who’s right?
One-out-of-twenty Nobelists is skeptical of AGW.
… Who’s right?
The evidence just keeps getting stronger that the skeptics are wrong.
———————————-
Nobellists urge action on climate change
URL: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090528/full/news.2009.528.html
I read your citation. As usual, you leave out broad swaths from your own reference. Most of those Nobels are not scientists of any sort.
“economics, peace and literature” Yeah, they really know what they’re talking about, just like you.
You ignored the main point. Dr. Giaever disputed the issue that the society insists on global warming being “settle science” when they can’t even agree on consistent behavior of sub-atomic particles. That’s called hypocrisy.
It also highlights that you are not a scientist, because you derogate the basic principle of scientific research and discovery. But we already knew you weren’t a scientist. You’re a politician and a tenured feudalist jihadist.
http://faculty.washington.edu/sidles/FRIAS_2011/
Ivar Giaever IS a shill, paid by the Heartland Institute, among others. See his bio at the Heartland website under “Heartland Experts.” Is it any surprise that deniers can be so easily traced? The bulk of deniers seem to be laymen sitting on couches complaining about taxation, as if the physical world (that actually keeps them alive) is irrelevant to their existence.
Giaever’s major research into electron tunneling, etc. happened about 50 years ago, and he may have been floundering for decent pay and saw Heartland as a gravy train. He wouldn’t be the first faded scientist to do that. Look at the other “experts” on Heartland’s site.
His bio at NNDB is also interesting, portraying him as an intellectual slacker who didn’t get the best grades. He specialized in electronics, fitting a pattern of people who are more interesting in manipulating nature than respecting its laws. You see a lot of engineer types proclaiming themselves climate experts by vague association.
It should be stressed that Giaever has NEVER been a climate scientist. In science, specialization is critical to true understanding of a topic. Someone with an economic axe to grind can easily claim that a class they took here or there touching on climatology qualifies them as an “expert.”
Have any of you deniers (sorry, I mean skeptics) stopped to consider what the “American Physical Society” actually is? Go to its site and get info on its members. Do you really think an odd dissenter is by default more intelligent than ALL those other physicists just because he tows the “conservative” line of endless carbon-burning? What exactly is conservative about gluttony?
After all, global warming is mainly about human overpopulation and the burning of carbon that would have otherwise remained trapped underground. If there were billions fewer people using a lot less oil, there might be climate equilibrium.
Those who’ve politicized the issue are not doing it out of honest scientific scrutiny. They are protecting the shortsighted gravy train of endless growth.
It’s been known since 1896 that CO2 had strong potential to raise temperatures. “Skepticism” only became earnest after it was clear we had to change our habits. That’s how it goes with human nature in so many realms. People hunker down and defend the institutions of easy living.
Either way, it makes no sense for anyone to squander fossil fuels. Crude oil is probably peaking, globally (in 2006 per the IEA) and it’s crazy to not conserve. See “Peak Oil recession.” The economy may no longer be able to grow like it has (a good thing on a finite planet) and Peak Oil itself may slow global warming, unless we go full bore on coal & gas.