Nobel Winning Scientist quits APS over Global Warming stance

[Grail]

http://sppiblog.org/news/nobel-prize...ming#more-6022



Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming
Source: Climate Depot

Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’

By Marc Morano

Climate Depot Exclusive

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. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.

Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: ‘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.’

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group’s belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: “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.”

Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’

Giaever, a professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, has become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears. He was featured prominently in the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of (then) Over 700 Dissenting International Scientists from Man-made global warming. Giaever, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and won the 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics.

Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming. See: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming: ‘We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated’

Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot’s more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared. “I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? 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,” Giaever explained. “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,” he concluded.

Giaever also told the New York Times in 2010 that global warming “can’t be discussed — just like religion…there is NO unusual rise in the ocean level, so what where and what is the big problem?”

This is not the first climate induced headache for the American Physical Society. It’s strict adherence to man-made global warming beliefs has created a stir in the scientific community and let to an open revolt of its scientific members.

On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.” An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

In October 2010, the APS suffered more scientific woes when another one of its prominent physicists resigned. The late Physicist Hal Lewis, who died in May of 2011, excoriated the APS leadership for its strict dogmatic like adherence to man-made global warming beliefs. See: Prominent Physicist Resigns: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’ & See: Prominent Physicist Resigns From American Physical Society: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’ — APS President Curtis Callan ‘seems to have abandoned most ethical principles…APS has become a corrupt organization’ & see: APS responds to resignation of Dr. Hal Lewis — AND Dr. Lewis Responds Back To APS!

APS President has been under fire as well. See: ‘APS President Callan didn’t even bother to discuss the ClimateGate and the petition inspired by it with Will Happer and Robert Austin’

Below is the full text of Ivar Giaever’s full letter of resignation to the APS:

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

[obdigore]

So he apparently agrees that the world is becoming warmer, but is happy because it will make Iceland tropical.

What a stand-up fellow.

[Grail]

Tropical Iceland? Where did you get that?

What I took away from the article was that this Nobel Laureate feels that the change in global temperature is mild and naturally occurring. He seems to feel strongly enough that the truth is being misrepresented, that he's resigning from a prestigious fellowship. I think that's pretty stand up. This is a credentialed and decorated scientist, not some intern. Hardly reason to be flippant, unless honesty is inconvenient and best avoided.

[Xamota]

any scientist, or educated person, for that matter knows that the human contribution to CO2 gas in the atmosphere is negligent.

[Voij]

any scientist, or educated person, for that matter knows that the human contribution to CO2 gas in the atmosphere is negligent.

It's not. It's also not as bad as environmentalists make it out to be.

There are various studies that quite clearly show that the changes in the atmosphere is not purely natural, the only factor we cannot yet agree on is how much of it is actually due to humanity. We can, however, agree that it is more than nothing.
Whether it endangers this or at earliest the 4th next generation is not agreed upon, though.

Anywho, this guy clearly overreacted, imo. And no, just because someone won a Nobel Prize 37 years ago doesn't mean he's safe from being batshit crazy now that he got old. [Not saying he is, just that one shouldn't believe everything a guy said that won a prize so many years ago... Not all people age well.]

[zorkuus]

All I got from the article is that he's not a climatologist.

[Maharishi]

1. I don't know how he claims to know the temperature of the earth 150 years ago, it's hard enough to figure out now.

2.

"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,"

I read that as "well, correlation doesn't imply causation, so lets ignore it because i don't like it."

3. Even if we aren't causing man made global warming, I'd still prefer we stop dumping ridiculous amounts of pollution into our environment, especially when we have scrubbing technology that will only minimally increase production cost.

[Arkhias]

The guy is a solid-state physicist.

His knowledge about the science of global warming is limited to second hand information he read from the internet or saw on the news. The same as any single one of us responding to or reading this topic.

[Deleted]

I think the issue is the incontrovertible status it has. That just isn't scientific. These days it really is more about political image than about science.

[Grail]

Lol! He was a member of an "esteemed" scientific body. You don't think he's studied this at length and had numerous discussions with his peers? I doubt he'd take such a strong stand if he wasn't well informed.

I like how quickly people try to discredit others by labeling them as "bat shit crazy", which is common speak for, "I don't like them". A Nobel Prize in 1973 meant a lot more than one today. Just ask Obama. It also amazes me how rarely people view age and experience as an asset these days.

[zorkuus]

Lol! He was a member of an "esteemed" scientific body. You don't think he's studied this at length and had numerous discussions with his peers? I doubt he'd take such a strong stand if he wasn't well informed.

What about the scientists who actually do research in climatology? They haven't studied this at lenght? Why would I take the word of a physicist over a climatologist in this issue?

I don't get it why some people think science is somesort of a single entity. Most scientists specialize in only one field of science, so just because they are called a scientist doesn't mean they necassarily know more about some other field of science than even the average person. Stephen Hawking wouldn't be the first person I'd go to if I wanted to know more about evolution. He has no merit whatsoever in the field of biology/genetics no matter how merited he is at another field of science.

[Arkhias]

Lol! He was a member of an "esteemed" scientific body. You don't think he's studied this at length and had numerous discussions with his peers? I doubt he'd take such a strong stand if he wasn't well informed.

I like how quickly people try to discredit others by labeling them as "bat shit crazy", which is common speak for, "I don't like them". A Nobel Prize in 1973 meant a lot more than one today. Just ask Obama. It also amazes me how rarely people view age and experience as an asset these days.

If you think scientists have the time to adequately study completely different fields than those they specialize in, then you haven't spent much time at a university/in the real world.

[Deleted]

But there is a consensus!!!11111

[fireblade]

Nobel Prize means nothing after they gave it to Obama.

[Syrrah]

Nobel Prize means nothing after they gave it to Obama.

Good thing he got his before Obama.

I don't get it why some people think science is somesort of a single entity. Most scientists specialize in only one field of science, so just because they are called a scientist doesn't mean they necassarily know more about some other field of science than even the average person. Stephen Hawking wouldn't be the first person I'd go to if I wanted to know more about evolution. He has no merit whatsoever in the field of biology/genetics no matter how merited he is at another field of science.

I would wager that this man knows more about any branch of science than most people, you included. Calling his opinion null and void because he isn't an environmentalist is plain stupid. Yes science is a very diverse term, covering many independent but closely related topics - good luck studying one without the others, let me know how it works out for you.

[Art3x]

What about the scientists who actually do research in climatology? They haven't studied this at lenght? Why would I take the word of a physicist over a climatologist in this issue?

You mean the ones getting the bulk of their funding from Pro-global warming camps, I'm sure their views are not biased at all...

The fact is man-made global warming is at best a very tiny fraction of the changing climate that overall hasn't changed dramatically in over 100 years. Our accurate temperature readings only go back maybe 150 years, and they are far from complete records. People are doing the whole sky is falling routine without having a freaking clue about what is actually happening.

[BugNuggets]

As the global warming debate enters it's 12th decade, it's good to see that it's finally being settled.

/sarcasm off.

Though I fail to see how anyone can out of hand dispute that as man significantly changes the chemical make-up of the atmosphere that it will have no (or an insignificant) effect. Can I piss in a bath tub and hand you a cup to drink? I will have introduced a much smaller percentage of pollution to the tub than we have to the air.

[Bakis]

The Nobelprice Obama got is the gimmick peaceprize. It wasnt even included in Alfred Nobels will.

Its just a prize, based on purely subjective merits unlike the real prizes which are in various sciences, math, literature and handed out in Sweden.

---------- Post added 2011-09-15 at 03:04 PM ----------

You mean the ones getting the bulk of their funding from Pro-global warming camps, I'm sure their views are not biased at all...

The fact is man-made global warming is at best a very tiny fraction of the changing climate that overall hasn't changed dramatically in over 100 years. Our accurate temperature readings only go back maybe 150 years, and they are far from complete records. People are doing the whole sky is falling routine without having a freaking clue about what is actually happening.

Love how some ppl try to sound like they know stuff...
Accurate temperatures you say. So if we can tell how much the temperature was at some point thousands of years ago within 1-3 degrees by icecore samples, spectrum analazys, what plants were growing etc. That isnt good enough cos it wasnt made by a termomether?... Gotcha.

At least Perry got one vote from you. After all, earth was created in 7 days and global warming is a hoax by the communist smurfs all over the planet.

[Art3x]

I like how you assume my religious views based on the fact I'm not fooled into believing global warming.

The planet has clearly been warming as we've been leaving an ice-age for the past 10,000 or so years. I don't think that's in doubt, the man-made aspect of it is the issue.

[champ3000]

“Global warming has become a new religion."

That is the best part from this whole thing. It is true, people defend it to the core, because they know if they are wrong then it somehow changes their perception of themselves and their lives.

I love all of these fake scientists on here acting like they somehow know more than a man that won the Nobel Prize. Wow, I mean that is absolutely shocking. Did you guys ever stop to think that the man has an opinion that is worth listening to?

I love how if you don't drink the global warming kool-aid then you must be a gun-toting, religion-spouting, right wing nutjob. Why don't you can the stereotypes and discuss the science. We have no clue whether man made global warming is a real factor. We just don't know right now, and all this scientist is saying that we better spend more money trying to figure it out then to keep dumping $600 million dollars into fake solar panel companies.