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

are insurance policies bad?
By subh on 9/15/2011 5:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
what about global climate change? or the fact that humans are permanently changing the face of the planet? It seems we have decided wholeheartedly not to be careful in protecting the planet's environment. I still don't get what the problem is with protecting our planet & its environment even if we consider it just an investment/insurance towards the future of the planet - forget "global warming"! Isn't it judicious to eat healthy and maintain a good state of the body irrespective of the fact whether or not you are sure of getting a heart attack 10 years from now? Or will you just keep gorging on unhealthy food by assuming you have no risk of heart disease? If 200 years from now pollution, temperature, whatever, makes the planet unsuitable to living, hope our descendants will not blame our generation for not giving the sinister possibility enough chance and for being too greedy.

P.S.: Dr. Ivar Giaever is an extraordinary *quantum physicist*, and his Nobel prize was for his work on solid-state physics - which is all awesome, and deserves great respect! But then, he is not a climate/environment scientist. His opinion on global warming is as good as his opinion on how "tomatoes" should be pronounced. 98% of climate scientists however still believe artificial global warming+climate change is a fact. Picking two numbers to represent a complex system as the global climate does not do justice to climate analysis.




RE: are insurance policies bad?
By someguy123 on 9/15/2011 6:48:16 PM , Rating: 3
Because this "insurance" is based on assumptions that are not proven. Containing human CO2 levels may not actually help prevent climate issues if humans are not the cause.

It would be like seeing a house on fire and immediately blaming the homeowners for playing with matches. What if there's a gas leak? It would never be fixed and there would likely be another fire in the future. There needs to be more money put into research, not more money being poured into CO2 credits and CO2 reduction, unless we prove that that is in fact the cause.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By Jeffk464 on 9/16/2011 9:50:44 AM , Rating: 2
There has been plenty of scientific studies that overwhelming lead to this conclusion. A lot of people say the same thing about evolution. Really what these people should say is they don't really accept science. More likely they are invested in their beliefs and don't want any contrary information to get in the way.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By Arsynic on 9/16/2011 10:39:49 AM , Rating: 2
Garbage in and garbage out. When the studies are based on the same flawed and manipulated data, of course they'll all be in agreement.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2011 10:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
So your argument, in regards to this article, is that a winner of a Nobel Prize for Physics rejects science.....

Good luck with that one.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By rikulus on 9/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: are insurance policies bad?
By The Raven on 9/16/2011 12:14:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
And your argument is what? If 98 scientists say one thing, and 2 say the other, I'll stick with the 2?

No, he is saying that he doesn't necessarily agree with the 98.

Some time ago scientists apparently believed that smoking was good for you. Well, all the ones who saw the light of day to speak about it. How many people do you see claiming that human driven climate change is bunk? 0. And that is the way the elites in NY would have it. If this guy is a whack job, we should put him on a pedestal and disprove his theories. Science should be transparent.

The same goes for the lipid hypothesis. I don't know all the details, but the only people I have seen effectively lose weight and get healthy, cut carbs, not fat. Anecdotal as that may be, there are scientists past and present who have railed against gov't policy to mandate a moratorium on fat and cholesterol while leaving carb intake unfettered. I know the data may be pushed by the dairy farmers or beef/pork lobbies, but I think the corn/pharmaceutical lobbies would the stronger ones in that fight. (Plus it seems that there is more of a focus on weight than the overall health that results from such a diet.)

If there is incontrovertible evidence then why haven't I seen it? I am relatively open to many new ideas and follow science news, but I am unswayed by Al Gore or anyone else to this point. If the evidence is so solid then I will take action of my own free will. I do see evidence of crappy air quality in urban areas and so I try my best to keep my personal pollution to a minimum and encourage others to do so (not to mention it is usually a cost savings measure). But I don't see incontrovertible evidence that we are heating up the world.

I have every reason to want to believe that we should do something about this alleged issue: I am a clean air proponent guy who has no problem with the cost of goods increasing. But I have yet to see it and I am sick as I gather this guy is also, of people ramming this THEORY down my throat.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By rikulus on 9/16/2011 2:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think FitCamaro would go a little further than say he "doesn't necessarily agree" with the 98, but I don't want to put words in his mouth.

I'm just trying to figure out what you are saying in the second paragraph, because I can totally understand and agree with much of your last three.

I would disagree that there was a time when as many scientists believed smoking was good for you as there are now scientists who agree with the consensus on global warming. There was certainly a campaign after the surgeon general released his statements on smoking being deadly where scientists and actors posing as scientists and doctors tried to convince the public that smoking was healthy. I think it's easy to see parallels between the "scientists" who claimed smoking was healthy after the surgeon general warning, and the "scientists" casting doubt on climate change. Some of the very same public relations firms actually organized and made/make money on both.

"How many people do you see claiming that human driven climate change is bunk? 0. And that is the way the elites in NY would have it." Are you actually saying nobody is calling climate change bunk, or being sarcastic, or what? I think there are several commenters on this website who are calling human driven climate change bunk. Who are the elites in NY?

As far as putting this guy on a pedestal and disproving his theories, he would have to put forth a theory about the topic before anyone could disprove it. There are plenty of people putting forth transparent research on climate change (as much as some people try to find red herring examples where the research wasn't transparent.)

I'm not sure what piece of evidence would be considered "incontrovertible" by someone determined not to believe that mankind can have a major effect on the earth's environment or climate. Especially when some of those people fall back to saying God wouldn't create an Earth that is fragile. (I'm not accusing you of this at all, you seem very reasonable and concerned about the environment... so I'll ask: what would incontrovertible evidence of human caused climate change look like to you?)


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By The Raven on 9/18/2011 6:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not sure what piece of evidence would be considered "incontrovertible" by someone determined not to believe that mankind can have a major effect on the earth's environment or climate.

I and many who don't believe are agnostic on the issue. We have not seen proof one way or the other. So I wouldn't say that I don't believe that mankind cannot affect the climate either. As a matter of fact I actually lean toward the contrary quite a bit.
quote:
Especially when some of those people fall back to saying God wouldn't create an Earth that is fragile. (I'm not accusing you of this at all, you seem very reasonable and concerned about the environment...
lol I'd never heard that one before.
quote:
so I'll ask: what would incontrovertible evidence of human caused climate change look like to you?)

I don't know... since I haven't seen it ;-)

But seriously it is like asking me to prove my belief in a God to you. You will either see/experience it or you won't. I may be able to tell you things to sway you but I shouldn't be mandating that you believe it.

For me personally, most any measure I would take to curb global warming... no I mean STOP global warming (because there would be no point in curbing it), has already pretty much been taken, in order to save money/air/water/etc.

So there isn't really any reason for me to research climate change in detail unless I am open to taking people's freedom from them. Hell if I thought the earth would be uninhabitable due to climate change, I would commit mass murder in order to save the children/future. (Talk about cutting emissions) And you and I certainly don't want that to happen lol. I'd go all Jonathan Swift, but it would be the other way around where we feast on the adults instead of the infants :-O~~~

quote:
I do see evidence of crappy air quality in urban areas

e.g.:That is incontrovertible to me I guess.

If the fact that bad air comes from cars, etc. is not incontrovertible to you than feel free to pollute the air should you feel like it, until I can convince you otherwise. I don't want to pass a law to make you do something that you don't even believe in. It is this top down crap that gets my goat. From the elites like your Presidents Obama and your Brians Williams. Yeah they all have plenty of $$$ to spend on expensive new cars, lights, carbon credits, etc. Why they want to mandate that non-believers such as myself also participate I don't understand. They want me to pay my share of the costs to curb this theoretical risk. And they do so while they live essentially the same life they always have. They can't just buy some new light bulbs and... crisis averted. If they really believed this crap, then they would make real sacrifices. I mean ask Al Gore who apparently believes this stuff if he has sacrificed? Last I heard he has a few huge mansions, flying all over the place, etc. and that is not part of an energy efficient lifestyle. If Gore and everyone else who believed in this was living like Ed Beagley Jr. then I might actually be inclined to believe them and look further in to it. But they don't. They just demand that the unbelievers subsidize protection from their nightmare.

Sorry I'm rambling a bit, but I just wanted to try to quickly address you question, which I hope I was able to do lol.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2011 11:39:31 PM , Rating: 1
His post said that people who disregard claims that humans are responsible for the warming our planet is supposedly undergoing disregard science. The man is an award winning scientist. Clearly this is not the case.

And yes, award winning physicists are smart. Certainly smarter than you. Otherwise you'd be winning awards.

And all the "evidence" that we are responsible for warming is based on flawed models, outright falsified and/or biased data, and inconsequential data sets (~100 years or even less). That is how I see it.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By Voldenuit on 9/17/2011 1:02:12 AM , Rating: 2
A quick application of Pascal's suffices to point us in the right direction.

If AGW proponents are correct and we do nothing, then the Earth (or humanity) is doomed.

If AGW proponents are wrong and we do nothing, then no harm is done.

If AGW proponents are correct and we do something (reducing CO2, investing in renewable and non-polluting energy), then we are saved (assuming our measures are enough).

If AGW proponents are wrong and we still reduce CO2, then no harm is done*.

* Yes, there is an economic cost to reducing CO2 and investing in "green" energy, but these costs are a drop in the bucket compared to real world financial crises like the sub-prime mortgage crisis or global financial crisis. And investing in clean and efficient energy also has the benefit of creating jobs, money, and reducing developed nations' dependence on fossil fuels and the existing oil cartels (none of which are particularly pleasant people).

In the absence of definitive proof, the only sensible action we can take is to assume the worst and do our best to mitigate the potential issue. If we wait 100 years to see if the environment suffers a catastrophe, it'll be too late to fix matters by the time it happens. In the mean time, there is a preponderence of evidence that climate change is happening (low arctic ice levels, global and regional temperature maps, satellite data) in addition to several scientific models and hypotheses of catastrophic failure (ocean acidity and the crustacean food chain, etc). No one has yet provided any plausible model where voluntary reduction of anthropogenic CO2 will do any harm to the environment. Even though there are other factors affecting global temperatures (such as solar cycles), human CO2 production is the only variable we can directly affect, so it's the best option we have to combat climate change, whether significant or not. In the mean time, I'm happy to reap the very real benefits of technological advances in efficiency (better gas mileage on cars, renewable energy providers giving competition to big iron electric companies, etc).


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By KPOM1 on 9/17/2011 8:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. The economic costs of reducing carbon are significant if it turns out that the AGW adherents are incorrect. The EU went to great lengths to reduce carbon output after its member nations signed the Kyoto Treaty, and what happened by and large is that they accomplished their goal (reducing carbon output by 40%) by outsourcing manufacturing to China. On the whole, they just shifted carbon production, rather than reduce it, and strengthened China's economic hand even more.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By Eris23007 on 9/15/2011 7:40:21 PM , Rating: 5
A few key comments:

1) The climate has been continually changing since long before humans were around. The major question is whether we can really do anything to affect the climate's changes (positive or negative). Proponents of (your words) "protecting our planet & its environment" who advocate for reductions in carbon emissions are taking the following three positions simultaneously (and simple logic dictates that if even one of them is incorrect, the purpose of reducing carbon emissions is negated):

A) the climate's changes are negative (i.e. a "bad" thing)
B) the changes are caused by humanity through emissions of CO2, and
C) by drastically reducing the amount of CO2 emitted, we can reduce or reverse these changes (which, if (A) is true, must be a "good" thing)

There are many, many ways that each of these three necessary assertions could be invalidated. Most of the arguments over the climate change issue revolve around one of these three items.

For the purposes of this comment, the issue is really item (C) - calling a program to drastically reduce CO2 emissions an "insurance policy."

There is just one problem with this so-called "insurance policy:" it is enormously, mind-bogglingly expensive. If one believes assertions (A) and (B), virtually no CO2 emissions are acceptable, because the CO2 we've already emitted combined with the simple act of breathing (7 billion humans constantly taking in oxygen and emitting CO2 create a very large amount) make virtually any form of artificial CO2 emissions verboten.

So, that means not only coming up with a way to have completely carbon-free cars and electricity generation (extremely difficult and expensive if even possible with current technology), but also many other impacts. For just one example, we would not be permitted to make concrete anymore - the manufacturing process is extremely expensive.

Most knowledgable economists of have run the numbers have concluded that the only way to realistically achieve such drastic carbon emission reductions in the foreseeable future with current technology is to return to a roughly stone-age standard of living.

Would you pay $2,000,000 per month for an insurance policy on a $200,000 house? That's the kind of "insurance" you're advocating.

P.S. Invalidating someone's opinion because of their field of study is remarkably short-sighted. The fundamentals of the AGW position are built upon extremely complex computer simulations based upon certain climate-related assumptions. Therefore, people with the following skills / knowledge can reasonably be assumed to participate in building them:
- Certainly Climate Science types who help define the base assumptions
- Unquestionably mathematicians, statisticians, simulation experts - without the underlying mathematical models, the simulations won't run
- Computer scientists who actually implement these models into working code that spits out a result - and then have to test the code to prove that the results are actually valid

Quantum Physics relies on surprisingly similar models & simulations to predict the behavior of atomic and sub-atomic particles. As well there is evidence of a non-trivial component of quantum physical effects causing climate phenomena (cf: recent experiments at CERN of how cosmic rays impact cloud formation).

I, for one, consider physicists' opinions to be quite relevant to this debate - and that's what it is, since the AGW theorists have yet to prove a single hypothesis. Science isn't about consensus, and it isn't about opinion. It's about cold hard fact: form a hypothesis AND THEN PROVE IT.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By rikulus on 9/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: are insurance policies bad?
By The Raven on 9/16/2011 12:31:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I can't help but think: how does the cost of a tomahawk missile compare to a large windmill? I'd rather we'd spent the last 10 years building windmills rather than blowing things up.

Ok you are obviously trying to start a partisan debate. Don't believe everything the democratic party says. They are just as stupid as the republicans on a great many things IMHO.

It seems to me that for everything the reps get right that the dems get wrong, the opposite is true for other issues.

How about save the air and end the wars? Vote libertarian! (or cross the aisle to help get Ron Paul nominated during the rep primary ;-)


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By rikulus on 9/16/2011 2:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
Is "save the air" actually part of the Libertarian platform?

I heard Ron Paul talking about the environment on NPR a couple weeks ago. His idea that stricter personal property laws would solve those issues without the Government needing to get involved. But he did say that since water and air pollution travel from one property to another, that there would need to be government regulation of that... even though he had just finished saying he was going to get rid of government regulation. Aren't air and water the only things that really get regulated now anyways?

And stricter personal property laws to control pollution just sounds like more lawsuits and money for lawyers to me. And don't worry, I'm not naive enough to believe something a politician says. All I can do is know what I know, learn what I can, and watch out for guys that are saying the opposite.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By The Raven on 9/26/2011 10:53:31 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have a link to that interview? They post them all but I don't know which one you are referring to.

Regardless of what he said I would just take it as meaning *at least* less federal regulation. (That is the one sure thing I would assume of his opinion. Then he would (want to) leave it to the States, the community, etc.)

So if you are for less federal gov't intervention then you should vote for Ron Paul. That is the one thing I can say for sure without listening to that interview.

Also he is the only non-interventionalist within the 2 parties who will work hard to bring our troops home and keep them there. IMO It will be nice to have a president that WE would have to talk into a war, instead of THEM trying to convince us (e.g. Bush, Obama, etc.)


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By 0ldman on 9/16/2011 3:06:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Scientists haven't "proven" a hypothesis? Scientists haven't "proven" how gravity works, does that mean we can't predict how fast things will fall when we drop them?


They haven't figured out the process of how/why gravity works, however, it is a measurable force. It is consistent, proven. Man made global warming is a bunch of arrogant, money grubbing jacks looking for suckers.

I think they found them.

Even reproducing the climate in a computer model is so complex that there is no way they've gotten it right. They can't predict weather, hurricanes, etc, with a single simulation. They run dozens, if not more, and come up with an average. Those still have a huge margin for error.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By animekenji on 9/16/2011 9:26:49 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with your so called "insurance policy" is it destroys jobs worldwide and plunges hundreds of millions and possibly billions of people into poverty who wouldn't be there if they were allowed to work for a living. Just remember that it is going to be the poorest of the poor and those who are just hanging on who are going to be most affected by a government mandated slowdown or halt in economic activity in any country when they can no longer afford the cost of food, housing, and medical care. You'll have the blood of those hundreds of millions or even billions of people on your hands when they die of poverty, starvation, and illness that might have been avoided had there been jobs available for them to support themselves and their country had been allowed to develop instead of trying to preserve it as it is at the cost of countless lives.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By ZorkZork on 9/16/2011 3:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you assume that conserving energy would be expensive? And why would a government mandated shutdown be in order?

50 years ago you could not run a city without dumping garbage in lakes, rivers, etc. Has it made the world a poorer place that we now clean up our waste?

And just think about the money saved if the US only used 25% of the oil it is using today. And crazy people like Chavez would run out of money to their revolutions.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By Jeffk464 on 9/16/2011 9:34:37 AM , Rating: 2
"humanity is still around"

Nobody ever said that global warming would kill off humanity, just that it will have a significant impact on weather systems. Humanity survived the ice age just fine, humans are nothing if not adaptable. That being said it changing weather patterns could make crops harder to grow in some regions causing big problems for people in those regions.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By twhittet on 9/16/2011 10:55:30 AM , Rating: 2
Fire, drought, flood, rising coastal waters, tornadoes, hurricanes. All valid concerns from even mild rising of temperature.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By autoboy on 9/16/2011 1:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
Fire, drought, flood, rising coastal waters, tornadoes, hurricanes. All valid concerns regardless of climate change. They will continue regardless of what the overall climate is. It's called weather.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By Jeffk464 on 9/16/2011 9:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
" I still don't get what the problem is with protecting our planet & its environment"

Its called big money, big money controls the government and they absolutely don't want anything that interferes with them making more money.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By drycrust3 on 9/16/2011 12:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
98% of climate scientists however still believe artificial global warming+climate change is a fact.

Any scientist who thinks that it is OK to fabricate research results and manipulate base data to fit a theory in a subject that is barely understood is not worth listening to, but that is exactly what those "scientists" in England did, and they are proud of it too!
quote:
I still don't get what the problem is with protecting our planet & its environment

The problem is this isn't about protecting the environment, it is about stopping people earning a living (except those "scientists"). What are the main gases a car produces? CO2 and H2O. What are the two main by products every living creature produces? CO2 + H2O! Notice that: the modern motor vehicle has the same by-products as nature itself produces, so logic will tell you those by-products will not accumulate and kill us, but will be recycled.


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By ZorkZork on 9/16/2011 3:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
Those "scientists" didn't manipulate their data. They did write something pretty stupid in their emails. And even if they did, why would you assume that the rest of the 98% did the same?

The thing is ... the CO2 produced by every living creature comes from plants that have just been harvested. That means that it is CO2 that has just been taken out of the atmosphere.

The CO2 that comes from burning carbohydrates comes from deposits millions of years old. That is the difference.

That said, I would love to see some estimates of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the amount in the oil in the ground.


A question about the big experiment
By Tony Swash on 9/15/2011 6:01:39 PM , Rating: 5
Leaving aside all the politics and all the money, both of which can pollute and deflect science, we are left with a fairly straight forward giant experiment. The supporters of the CO2 causes warming hypothesis make a clear cut causative argument: adding CO2 to the atmosphere in the amounts that humans add causes the average global temperature to increase. Now if you believe in good old fashioned science then two things about that hypothesis are immediately clear.

First: if CO2 is added to the atmosphere and the average global temperature does indeed increase then that is consistent with the CO2 causes warming hypothesis, It doesn't prove the hypotheses but it is consistent with it and all other things being equal would tend to be supportive of the hypothesis.

Second: if CO2 is added to the atmosphere and the average global temperature does not increase then the CO2 causes warming hypothesis is pretty much definitively proved false .

Since the peak year of 1998 the the average global temperature has not increased. It has gone up and down but never surpassed the peak of thirteen years ago. Various groups of researchers and compilers of some global temperature sets may attempt to quibble about that statement but even accepting their arguments about the stats still means accepting that at best there has been a tiny and really statistically speaking insignificant rise at one point above 1998.

I personally prefer the satellite global temperature sets as I think they are far more accurate than the 'adjusted' and incomplete surface sets. And the evidence from the satellites is absolutely clear. No warming since 1998. Thirteen years of no warming.

My questions to those who support the CO2 causes warming hypothesis is this: if you accept that increasing CO2 and getting no warming over a long enough time period will disprove your hypothesis how long is that time period? Does thirteen years of no warming disprove your hypothesis? Twenty years? Twenty five?




RE: A question about the big experiment
By dgingerich on 9/15/2011 6:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
On top of all of this, we can get approximate CO2 data and temperature from tree rings and ice cores over the last 300 years, and this shows that, contrary to the "hockey stick" chart of the past 150 years used so frequently by the GW movement, that the mean global temperature has gone down and back up comparatively to the level today while CO2 has increased. This completely blows their conclusions out of the water. Many want to cover this up, though, as it does not fit their doom and gloom predictions.

They also disregard the data that 350 million years ago, when the sun was hotter and CO2 levels were 7 times what they are today, average temperatures were a bit higher than today, there were no ice caps, and life was at its most abundant of the history of the Earth. (Hint: that's where all the oil, natural gas, and coal come from.)


RE: A question about the big experiment
By Jeffk464 on 9/16/2011 10:01:30 AM , Rating: 2
I think there was also much higher oxygen levels at the time which probably explained their being more abundant life. Either way this experiment is going to play out so I guess we might as well sit back and watch what happens. Most likely those of us in wealthy countries won't have a problem with it anyways. Most of the potential harm will probably come in places like Somalia where you can see how closely their survival is tied into their own marginal farming.


RE: A question about the big experiment
By bh192012 on 9/16/2011 5:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
Where did the oxygen come from... right all the plants. What do plants breathe? C02


By deadrats on 9/18/2011 5:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
plants only consume C02 and release O2 during the day, at night the process is reversed and plants consume O2 and release C02; this is the reason that many people that sleep under a tree at night (say during the summer months in their backyard or on a camping trip) suffer from hallucinations such as the feeling that some unseen force is touching them or similar such sensation.


RE: A question about the big experiment
By rikulus on 9/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: A question about the big experiment
By vortmax2 on 9/16/2011 11:27:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It certainly wasn't sun cycles, which are very low at the moment (and could explain why temperatures have been close to level since 1998 - but if it was just the sun, then temperatures would have gone way down instead of staying level.)


How can you be "certain" that sun cycles don't have a more significant impact? As with all climate change 'sources', there is significant lag time before the full effects of that 'source' are felt. Being a Meterologist myself (with limited, but more than your average-Joe knowledge about our climate), I believe the real effects of the new solar minimum we appear to be entering will be realized in full force over the next decade or so.


By rikulus on 9/16/2011 2:53:16 PM , Rating: 1
I was talking about the 11 year sun spot cycle.

And why would there be such a long lag between the suns output change and the effect on earth's temperature? A decade? (Maybe you are saying the solar minimum won't bottom out for a decade or something?)

I notice a pretty dramatic and immediate effect from the change in solar heating every day, and every season. What mechanism would there be to cause a 10 year delay in it's effects?


RE: A question about the big experiment
By homebredcorgi on 9/16/2011 12:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
Your argument is so overused, it's #9 on the top 10 at skeptical science:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-sto...

Why would taking only the last 10 years of data prove anything? This is akin to looking at the stock market in the last 10 years and saying it never goes up (prices are nearly flat over the last 10 years), but we know from historical data it has gone up significantly. I could curve-fit a line to that kind of data and give you any slope you want - so long as I get to choose the time range(s).

And since you prefer to only use satellite data (very convenient for your argument). here you go:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurem...

The bottom line is that this is a very complex problem (much more complex than simply "measuring the temperature over time and plotting the results" as many here seem to think). It deserves our attention and debate, but it has been transformed into a political issue. Science can be wrong and group-think does happen - but our current evidence and vast majority of experts think this is real.

Another question: Why do you care what a particle physicist thinks about climate science? Do you go to a dentist for heart surgery?


By thesafetyisoff on 9/16/2011 11:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
"Why do you care what a particle physicist thinks about climate science?"

Because he appears to have a good understanding about what is science, what is politics, and the role of his former organization in both.

Plenty of people are qualified to label a presumptuous proclamation as bad science, even if it's outside their field.


By ZorkZork on 9/16/2011 3:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
I would love to see GW theory debunked. The resources could be spend on something more fun and useful.

However just looking at whether the record year of 1998 has been beaten or not doesn't prove anything. Just like this years record temperatures everywhere doesn't prove anything. Just think about how much the weather change all the time. And just think about how things like El Nino or volcano eruptions can affect weather.

A single year is "weather". When looking at a decade then you start to see climate trends. Although to have any kind of certainty you probably need more than that, because the "year-to-year" changes are minute.

It is almost like looking at average age. According to wikipedia in 1997 Jeanne Calment died at the age of 122. Since that no one has come close. Does that mean that the average life expectancy is no longer increasing?


Al Gore
By TerranMagistrate on 9/15/2011 6:56:36 PM , Rating: 4
The most successful con artist in history.




RE: Al Gore
By wordsworm on 9/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: Al Gore
By animekenji on 9/16/2011 9:35:20 AM , Rating: 3
The Democrats in Congress had access to the same intelligence data that Bush did and they agreed with the conclusion that he did have weapons stashed and so did the U.N. Security Council when Saddam refused to comply with inspections. It was not a unilateral decision by Bush alone but you Dems never let pesky little things like facts stand in the way of a good argument, do you?


RE: Al Gore
By rikulus on 9/16/2011 10:59:35 AM , Rating: 1
News Flash! Congress and the Security Council did NOT have the same intelligence data that Bush had! Congress and the Security Council only had what Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush wanted them to have. I thought everybody knew this by now. You really think the CIA just gives <insert low level member of Congress from either party here> free reign to all US intelligence information? And they give it to all members of the UN Security Council, too?! Different parts of US intelligence and security weren't even sharing with each other back then.

If the UN has ALL the information, why would they need Colon Powell to go give them a 1 hour speech (which included intelligence the CIA KNEW was incorrect about Al Queda having a connection with Saddam Hussein). Or do you think that 1 hour speech included all the data that anybody knew?

And I remember those votes in Congress. 1) Bush always said "this is to show unity so Saddam will let us back in for more inspections" never "this is so I can launch a shock and awe campaign next week." 2) They spun any dissent in the vote as being an attack on our military personnel, as being un-American.


RE: Al Gore
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2011 10:50:03 AM , Rating: 1
You're just like a pull string toy aren't you.


Tiffany....
By Breathless on 9/15/2011 5:13:41 PM , Rating: 3
What is happening to you?!

Are you abandoning your steadfast warming hippy zaniness for a slightly more moderate position?

Also, I noticed other articles from you over the past few days that are actually normal tech news.

A welcome change indeed miss. A welcome change indeed....




RE: Tiffany....
By TSS on 9/15/2011 6:30:01 PM , Rating: 3
Thats what you say. First jason starts cleaning up his act, now Tiffany.

How will masher ever return if there are no global warming nuts to dispute? :p


Good for you, DailyTech - now what about Shockley?
By name99 on 9/15/2011 5:41:33 PM , Rating: 1
Since you're in the business of telling us Nobel laureate's opinions are important, even about subjects they are not specialists in, how about a whole series on William Shockley and his opinions in the field of sociology?

Heck, why stop there? Let's hear about the opinions of Knut Hamsun (another Nobel laureate, and another norwegian) on the subject of Jews. Lets hear about the opinions of Julius Wagner-Jauregg, another Nobel laureate. How about Konrad Lorenz? After all, you're the one's who brought up the importance of Nobel laureate's opinions.




By borismkv on 9/15/2011 7:01:05 PM , Rating: 3
Well, a physicists opinion on what is and isn't good science is very valid. Making a public statement that computer generated models as evidence of MGW is incontrivertable is very bad science. Good science is openly debating the data and peer reviewing it to make certain you are correct. And a large number of "Climatologists" are physicists, just like this man. Does that mean they also aren't specialists?


By This Old Man on 9/15/2011 9:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
It should also be noted that the co-recipient of Dr. Ivar Giaever's Nobel prize, Brian Josephson, has spent the last two decades studying Extra Sensory Perception, under the assumption that it is real ... and much to the chagrin of his colleagues at Cambridge.

In short, these prizes ain't all they're cracked up to be. And that includes Al Gore's and Obama's. Now can we change the subject?


What about Coke and Pepsi?
By animekenji on 9/16/2011 9:11:47 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder why they haven't tried to shut them down yet with all the CO2 bubbles that get released whenever someone drinks a soda. Shouldn't carbonated beverages be illegal since they release CO2? That doesn't just include soda, it also includes drinks like sparkling water, beer and champagne. There would be a working class revolt if you told them you were taking their beer and soda away because of the CO2 in them.




temperature changes
By AwesomeDuck on 9/16/2011 12:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
The problem isn't that the temperature is changing, that's to be expected as Earth is a dynamic environment. The problem is at what rate it changes. If the temperature changes too dramatically for life to adjust accordingly, then there are problems. Have these things happened in the past? Absolutely. Will they happen again? Without a doubt. But if we are the cause of so many negative impacts on the environment, would it not suit not only nature, but us as well? I mean, let's completely disregard the issue of temperature flux for a moment, and focus only on the most important things, like water, air quality, and food production. The Cuyahoga River fire was not that long ago. It's something people seem to easily forget. Yes, we cleaned it up and, sure, certain manufacturing practices have changed, but it's still a slippery slope. Not only in terms of "oh, we gotta save the fish!", but what people can drink or bathe in. And how about Donora, Pennsylvania? Yeah, that was 1948, and many things were different, but it's always an excellent lesson to keep in mind. No one wants to live near a river that's in flames and breath air that suffocates. There are reasons we changed the nature of certain activities; to mitigate future risk. The drought in the southwest this year has cost a number of farmers large amounts of money in terms of livestock and crop loss. I'm not saying that this particular event is caused by climate change, droughts happen. But we aren't exactly adapted to such severe drought conditions, so shouldn't we take steps to mitigate the risk of future droughts as well? So many in the developed world have a hard time wrapping their minds around global change because most developed countries are not in the regions that tend to be most impacted.

I would also like to add that wind and solar energy aren't viable solutions to meeting the demands of our energy consumption needs at this time. Most R&D needs to be put into those technologies. However, nuclear power is a suitable alternative, and is certainly a direction worth moving in. R&D in solar and wind power and the creation of new nuclear plants would create plenty of jobs, even once we manage to rid ourselves of coal/oil power.




GW is not just CO2
By twhittet on 9/16/2011 2:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
Why is there so much "hype" over global warming? Because it's become the figurehead of environmentalism. GW CO2, and the direct or indirect long term impact is not 100% known. A little common sense also goes a long way on the subject though.

There are thousands of other airborne pollutants that pretty much everyone should be able to agree are bad for the environment, and bad for people. Where do most of these pollutants come from? Pretty sure we don't make them planting trees! CO2 is the easiest target, but eliminating and reducing fossil fuel use reduces a plethora of other pollutants.

Anyone who doesn't believe in GW - if you can cheaply, cleanly burn coal or whatever you want, with the ONLY pollutant being CO2 - fine, go for it. We'll find out sooner or later if GW is real. Until you can do that, then we should still all agree that reducing pollutants should be important - CO2 or not.




Dueling Nobel Laureates
By hellcats on 9/16/2011 6:12:14 PM , Rating: 2
Although I applaud the effort, there really is no contest between a Nobel for Physics and a Nobel for Peace (e.g. Al Gore). Rational thought and criticism has no place in climate "debate". Political expediency will win every time. Everyone seems hung up on the meaning of "incontrovertible". If something is incontrovertible then it is self evident and not open to debate. To state that anthropogenic climate change is incontrovertible shuts down debate before it can even begin. Such an attitude has no place in true science, but is the hallmark of the tyrant. Political figures measure success by how much they can control or effect. Scientist measure success by how close they can get to the truth. Is it any wonder that the two groups talk past each other? Unfortunately mysticism and relativism still account for 99% of the population, and the mob always wins.




Well that's one denier...
By johnsmith9875 on 9/15/11, Rating: -1
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.


Unfortunately, he's wrong
By bildan on 9/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: Unfortunately, he's wrong
By ZmaxDP on 9/15/2011 5:11:19 PM , Rating: 4
Uhhhh...

Read his stance. He is saying exactly what that quote stands for. He is against calling GW "incontrovertible". In other words, all those distinguished climate scientists are the ones that are wrong. To assert that something is "incontrovertible" is to assert that the alternate possibility is impossible. So, the climatologists are claiming that global warming being caused by natural factors is "impossible" since evidently it is "incontrovertible" that humans are causing it. This guy isn't saying anything is impossible. He's saying that both things are possible but not proven, and thus shouldn't be driving policy or investment to the degree that it is.


RE: Unfortunately, he's wrong
By name99 on 9/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: Unfortunately, he's wrong
By someguy123 on 9/15/2011 6:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
Why must people post comments without reading the article?

The person you're responding to is referring to comments made by Giaever in his resignation email.


RE: Unfortunately, he's wrong
By dgingerich on 9/15/11, Rating: 0
RE: Unfortunately, he's wrong
By dgingerich on 9/15/2011 6:38:32 PM , Rating: 5
To clarify:

The GW crowd says the data and their conclusions are "incontrovertible", and that they can't certainly be wrong. This is drawing a very arrogant conclusion, saying that their error can't exist.

This scientist is saying that their statement is monstrously arrogant and that there is always the possibility that they are wrong, and that their data needs to be proven more thoroughly. Their error is certainly possible to exist.

This fits quite well with that Arthur C Clark quote.


RE: Unfortunately, he's wrong
By someguy123 on 9/15/2011 6:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really understand how his quote applies in this context.

Nowhere does he imply that it's impossible, but that it's not proven possible, and that labeling it as proven without evidence is unscientific. Basically he's saying they aren't in a neutral position. Clarke's quote is directed and old people that claim "possible or impossible", not those demanding neutrality.


RE: Unfortunately, he's wrong
By Starcub on 9/16/2011 2:19:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uhhhh... Read his stance. He is saying exactly what that quote stands for. He is against calling GW "incontrovertible".

Uhhhh.... Read the article. He's saying that the GW that IS OCCURRING isn't as big of problem as the other scientists think it is. And why should he be concerned about it, he's a wealthy norwegian, not a poor north african.


RE: Unfortunately, he's wrong
By Starcub on 9/16/2011 2:39:07 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I re-read the article and came to a different conclusion. He is claiming that the existence of GW is indeterminable, and even if it were, as the other scientists claim, its not big deal. Which IMHO is even worse -- he's issued a strong opinion and getting himself all out of kilter over scientific conclusions arrived at as a result of the practice of a science that he disqualifies not only himself, but scientists in general to understand.


RE: Unfortunately, he's wrong
By animekenji on 9/16/2011 9:38:29 AM , Rating: 2
Firstly, Norwegians have more to worry about from global warming because they have a lot of ice and snow that would melt off and flood the country.

Secondly, the poor North African would be substantially less poor if his country was allowed to develop and build factories that provide jobs and build up the economy of his country raising the standard of living for all.


RE: Unfortunately, he's wrong
By Starcub on 9/17/2011 7:57:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Firstly, Norwegians have more to worry about from global warming because they have a lot of ice and snow that would melt off and flood the country.

The benefits to a warmer climate, for them, would far outweigh the negatives.

quote:
Secondly, the poor North African would be substantially less poor if his country was allowed to develop and build factories that provide jobs and build up the economy of his country raising the standard of living for all.

Factories? So long the US irrationally remains in bed with China, most of them won't ever see electricity or running water.


RE: Unfortunately, he's wrong
By michael67 on 9/15/2011 8:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
I for one dont know if global warming is happening or not, and from anything I have bin reading, no one really knows the facts as all conclusions go one way or the other.

But after reading the brilliant book "Big Bang" from Simon Singh, and all the history going to the ages, is that for a theory to be successful, the old generation have to die out that made the previous successful theory.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Big...
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Universe-Simon-Sing...


Dont need to be a scientist to understand weather
By KOOLTIME on 9/15/11, Rating: -1
By animekenji on 9/16/2011 9:42:23 AM , Rating: 1
You're absolutely right. This past winter was the longest and coldest with the most snowfall in my area for a very long time and they have been getting progressively colder for at least 10 years so the planet is most definitely getting colder and not hotter.


Both sides get their money...
By acsa77 on 9/15/11, Rating: -1
Weird Bias
By Noritsu on 9/15/11, Rating: -1
RE: Weird Bias
By tomppi on 9/16/2011 8:25:56 AM , Rating: 1
+1

atleast not as bad as:
'Study Finds "Huge Discrepancy" Between Hard Data and Warming Models'

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Finds+Huge+Discrepa...


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














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