backtop


Print 98 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Sep 26 at 10:53 AM


Dr. Ivar Giaever  (Source: newmediajournal.us)
Dr. Ivar Giaever announced his resignation Tuesday, September 13

A well-known physicist has resigned from his position with the American Physical Society (APS) due to its recent policy stating that global warming is real.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a 1973 Nobel Prize winner in physics and former professor with the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, announced his resignation from the APS on Tuesday, September 13, 2011.

The APS' official policy supports the theory that human actions have inexorably caused the warming of the Earth through heightened carbon dioxide emissions.

Giaever responded by refusing to pay his annual dues, and writing an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society, saying that he disagreed with this policy.

The following is the email sent from Giaever to Kirby on September 13:

From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:giaever@XXXX.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: kirby@aps.org
Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

 

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. 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 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.

 

Best regards,

 

Ivar Giaever

 

Nobel Laureate 1973

 

PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.


Ivar Giaever
XXX XXX
XXX
USA
Phone XXX XXX XXX
Fax XXX XXX XXX

According to the Wall Street Journal, Giaever announced he was an avid global warming skeptic in 2008, saying that global warming was "becoming a religion."

"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming?," said Giaever in 2008. "I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993. Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money."

Giaever, who earned his Nobel Prize for his experimental discoveries with tunneling phenomena in superconductors, joined more than 100 signers of a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama criticizing his position on climate change in 2009.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Well that's one denier...
By johnsmith9875 on 9/15/2011 4:38:31 PM , Rating: -1
Now if he can only convince the other 29,999 climatologists that he's right.

People to this very day still believe the dust bowl was caused by natural weather changes, not the fact that we had scraped clean most of the land in the central USA and farmed it, destroying the delicate balance of ecosystem and the soil that has been in place for thousands of years.




RE: Well that's one denier...
By SPOOFE on 9/15/2011 4:47:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
People to this very day still believe the dust bowl was caused by natural weather changes

People to this very day still believe that the world is flat. Some believe the world is 6000 years old and has been completely stable the entire time. Some believe the world is hollow and lizard men live inside; others believe that WE live inside, and that the entire universe we see is at the core.

People believe that the world is populated by spirit energy that gets into our brains and pollutes our thoughts. People believe that all life is worthless and should be destroyed. People believe that people are tasty snacks.

The overall point is that people believe some wacky, crazy things.

However, the vast majority of people believe some relatively sane, usual, unspectacular things. For instance, some people believe that the connection between carbon output and climate change has not been conclusively established, certainly not to the point of being "indisputable", and have very serious concerns about such a dogmatic stance invading the world of scientific study. Note that it's much easier to compare these people to those with inaccurate beliefs about the dust bowl than it is to actually engage their real concerns.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By Ringold on 9/15/2011 5:00:03 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, and his resignation letter focused on the word incontrovertible. Here most of us were, thinking nothing was incontrovertible; only holy scripture and its acolytes use such words.

Well, religious zealots and the APS, apparently? That was this guys point, or thats how I took it.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By dgingerich on 9/15/2011 5:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By Starcub on 9/16/2011 2:48:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, and his resignation letter focused on the word incontrovertible. Here most of us were, thinking nothing was incontrovertible; only holy scripture and its acolytes use such words. Well, religious zealots and the APS, apparently? That was this guys point, or thats how I took it.

It is incontrovertible that I will die.

Wow! I never realized that I am a religious zealot and that I'm right because holy scripture tells me I am.

Thanks!


RE: Well that's one denier...
By Solandri on 9/16/2011 1:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is incontrovertible that I will die.

Which is false because you can't be 100% sure you're actually alive. You, I, and reality may just be a simulation run on some grand computer. Maybe we've had this debate countless times before when the simulation was restarted from a save point, but we only remember the current iteration.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By lelias2k on 9/15/2011 5:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For instance, some people believe that the connection between carbon output and climate change has not been conclusively established, certainly not to the point of being "indisputable", and have very serious concerns about such a dogmatic stance invading the world of scientific study.


Agreed. But let's for instance stop thinking about global warming for a second. If you ever paid attention to the sky on a cloudless days in cities like LA, NY, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, etc, you'd think that would be enough to convince ppl that we need to change whatever we're doing. Shouldn't it?

Morpheus: Do you think that's air you're breathing now?


RE: Well that's one denier...
By Flux0r on 9/15/2011 5:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
If you can be convinced of anything by merely "paying attention to the sky", you probably shouldn't be in a position to change anything about whatever it is people are doing.

Remember the discussion is about the link between climate change and carbon emissions.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By wordsworm on 9/16/2011 5:29:20 AM , Rating: 2
He also inferred that the anthropomorphic effect on the ozone hole and acid rain are also busted myths. I'm surprised he didn't try to bust the DDT myth.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By shiftypy on 9/16/2011 7:05:16 AM , Rating: 2
I was young then, but AFAIK ozone layer thing was proper science. The link between halocarbons and ozone was proved and stuff was banned and all was well.
In this case there is no clear link between CO2 and warming or humans and warming. Multitude of factors is involved neither of which we can really cut like we did with freon.
So it is bad science and populism that this Nobel scientist is against. And I agree with him


RE: Well that's one denier...
By wordsworm on 9/16/2011 7:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but he seems to be saying that it was a myth that people were the cause of the effect.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By lelias2k on 9/17/2011 2:20:13 AM , Rating: 2
You missed my point completely.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By Scott66 on 9/15/2011 5:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
You are seeing pollution not carbon dioxide. They are two very different events.

We can control pollution. Global warming and Carbon dioxide just might be outside our control.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By bug77 on 9/15/2011 5:48:15 PM , Rating: 3
That's one of the dumbest argument I keep hearing from environmentalists. It's akin to cutting your arm off to treat a cut to your thumb.

Yes, we need to take care of the environment. But if you go mindlessly spending billions on false problems, you'll end up not taking care of the real ones.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By Ringold on 9/15/2011 4:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
Those 29,999 climatologists owe their paychecks and good portion of their careers moving forward on to the idea that GW is real and is an immediate enough danger to justify continually paying their wages.

The limelight and truck loads of government money can't really be said to not have an impact... That'd be ignoring human nature. The IPCC can't stay out of the news for more then a few weeks at a time thanks to its ethical lapses.

Not saying it renders all the "science" useless that comes from the field, just saying the blind faith of many is misplaced. Like the Climategate leaks showed, the sciences have petty, vain, vile and some times deceitful people in them just as any other field.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By lelias2k on 9/15/2011 5:04:34 PM , Rating: 3
Earlier this year, the Senate voted on whether to extend billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. The 48 senators who supported subsidies each got an average of over $370,000 in campaign contributions from the industry. The 52 senators who opposed subsides each got only about $72,000.

Senators who supported Wall Street’s position on the two most important financial service bills of the last two sessions of Congress—the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the 2010 financial reform bill—got an average of $879,803 from this special-interest group. Senators who opposed Wall Street got $63,569 each—a difference of nearly 14 to 1.

Do you still think climatologists should be the ones accused of lack of ethics???


By NullSubroutine on 9/15/2011 5:27:50 PM , Rating: 3
Yes.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: Well that's one denier...
By borismkv on 9/15/2011 6:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not forget that however many "Climatologists" there are, none of them actually *studied* climatology in college. This is because the study of climate over periods of time has been a fringe branch of science that rests in the realm of atmospheric studies. The majority of people who claim the title "Climatologist" are merely a member of a conglomerate of Physicists, Meteorologists, Geologists, Biologists, and a myriad of other scientific disciplines who are all waving a specific banner. Furthermore, just because someone is a scientist, it doesn't make them all knowing.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By dgingerich on 9/15/2011 5:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Earlier this year, the Senate voted on whether to extend billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. The 48 senators who supported subsidies each got an average of over $370,000 in campaign contributions from the industry. The 52 senators who opposed subsides each got only about $72,000.

Senators who supported Wall Street’s position on the two most important financial service bills of the last two sessions of Congress—the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the 2010 financial reform bill—got an average of $879,803 from this special-interest group. Senators who opposed Wall Street got $63,569 each—a difference of nearly 14 to 1.

Do you still think climatologists should be the ones accused of lack of ethics???


While there are many politicians who need to be the focus of ethics and moral character examination, that does not mean that all others are clean.

You also seem to forget that the IPCC and NOAA are both staffed with a majority of politicians, and their retired "scientist" mouthpieces make up the rest of the staff. They have the same ethics challenges as any other political group.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By espaghetti on 9/15/2011 7:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
Your numbers on the subsidies and donations are spot on. The part you left out was that those "subsidies" were tax breaks that were supposed to help domestic oil companies compete with foreign oil companies. The word "subsidy" is thrown around as if the U.S. gov is handing them cash like a certain solar panel company.

As far as the TARP program...total scam...they should be drawn and quartered and hell yeah I know what it means and why it was used in the past.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By twhittet on 9/16/2011 1:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
Subsidy or tax break, I'm not sure why we give $ to companies raking in record profits, while the govt itself technically has no $ to give?


RE: Well that's one denier...
By espaghetti on 9/16/2011 9:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
One more time :
quote:
tax breaks that were supposed to help domestic oil companies compete with foreign oil companies.

It's not giving someone a damn thing.
It is allowing a company to keep more of what it has EARNED!
Call it taking less money by force from someone.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By chemist1 on 9/15/2011 10:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
These are very interesting figures. Could you please cite their souce? Without such information, it's not possible to properly assess their credibility. [And sources should always be cited in any case, since this gives proper credit to those responsible for generating the information.]


RE: Well that's one denier...
By Ringold on 9/16/2011 9:59:53 AM , Rating: 2
So its okay for climatologists and environmentalists, but it's not okay for companies to petition their government as well? Can't have it both ways.

My answer would be a) thanks for the trolling b) yes, they should be accused of lack of ethics, no more and no less than the politicians themselves who are so deeply corrupted by the money in politics.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By dgingerich on 9/15/2011 5:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
I find it funny that the IPCC is staffed with 3/4 politicians with no scientific background whatsoever, 3/16 "scientists" who have never worked in a research position in their lives, satisfied with writing reports on what other scientists discover, and 1/16 (meaning two people) scientists who have retired from research after a decidedly unstellar career and owe their entire paycheck and future to the 3/4 mentioned at the beginning of this list.

And people think these guys have any credibility?


RE: Well that's one denier...
By ZorkZork on 9/15/2011 5:59:51 PM , Rating: 1
We keep hearing this silly argument that climatologists own their paychecks and careers to GW. While that is probably true, there is a lot more money in denying GW). And, any climatologist that plausibly rebukes GW will be the hero of the world. Unfortunately the only skeptics so far seem to be retired scientists in other fields.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By dgingerich on 9/15/2011 6:23:46 PM , Rating: 3
Most scientists rebuke the GW movement not on the basis of it being wrong, but on the basis that it is political and career suicide to even question it. With any science, especially one this young, everything needs to be questioned and reconfirmed over and over for a good amount of time (like 50-100 years of proof) before it can be confirmed as "incontrovertible". Even our understanding of the electron has changed many times over the two centuries since it was first conceived as existing.

The pseudo-religious nature of the GW movement is the very antithesis of science. It needs to be questioned. There are far, far too many things that are questionable about that stance, and many things that directly contradict their conclusions.

At the very least, scientists need to stop being blacklisted for questioning the methods and data of climatology. Science is all about questions.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By Ringold on 9/16/2011 10:02:57 AM , Rating: 2
Silly argument? Think the field would get a third of the money it does if not for all the hoopla?

Beyond that, I've also reinforced my belief with some personal experience, talking to a few people in other fields that've been able to research something closer to their heart/field and only given money because they stick global warming in their sales pitch for funding. Can't just study squirrels, it's gotta be squirrels and the impact of global warming on their habitat, or some such, and then the cash register opens and the money flows.


RE: Well that's one denier...
By ZorkZork on 9/16/2011 3:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is ... the first climatologist to rebuke GW gets the gold prize. Oil and coal companies will shower him with money.

The fact that every other climatologist else would suffer would not matter. He would be the king of the century. However, every attempt to rebuke GW seems to be made by scientists that do not work in the field.

Of course it could be a global conspiracy by all the climate scientists in the world. Yearh ... that must be it. We all know that such conspiracies are easy to create and maintain.

The again, it could also be that the people who actually study the climate are alarmed by what they see. And that because they love their family, country, and planet wants something done about it.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki