Another top physicists resigns from APS over "global warming"

[Arthur]

Following Prof Hal Lewis's dramatic resignation, another top-ranked scientist has resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) in protest over the APS stance that global warming is man-made. Dr. Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation on 13 Sept 2011 from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

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 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.

Here's his email to the APS last week:

From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: [email protected]
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

More googleable.

Let the witch-hunt and denigration begin.

 

[Geriatrix]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

 

[Ancalagon]

The most interesting part of the climate debate for me is not who is right or wrong, but the decision to use the word incontrivertable - ie not open for discussion. I dont think think there is a single other topic in all of science not open for discussion, and that even includes eugenics. I think I would get less ridicule for saying that there are racial differences than if I said the evidence for AGW was anything less than concrete.

And this is something that pro GW people, and that includes people on this board, miss. Anytime something is not open for discussion, you should immediately be suspicious of it.

 

[Hard Rain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Let's go back 3000 years.

Hmmm. Not so scary.

Source.

 

[Geriatrix]

Let's go back 3000 years.

Hmmm. Not so scary.

Source.

See now that's a good argument. The "stable 150 years" one is bollocks though.

 

[Ancalagon]

Let's go back 3000 years.

Hmmm. Not so scary.

Source.

Thanks, good reads. Of particular note:

In other words, we’re pretty lucky to be here during this rare, warm period in climate history. But the broader lesson is, climate doesn’t stand still. It doesn’t even stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.

Does this mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? No.

Does it mean that it isn’t warming? No.

Does it mean that we shouldn’t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels? Of course not. We should do all those things for many reasons — but there’s plenty of time to do them the right way, by developing nanotech. (There’s plenty of money, too, but it’s all going to climate science at the moment. ) And that will be a very good thing to have done if we do fall back into an ice age, believe me.

For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.

 

[Greylor]

Remember, if you don't fully agree with the status quo of the climate change debate then you are an uneducated redneck hillbilly who only watches Fox news, is a Tea Party radical, has a poster of Bush above your bed who still thinks the South will rise again.

Its obviaaaas!

 

[Pitbull]

Remember, if you don't fully agree with the status quo of the climate change debate then you are an uneducated redneck hillbilly who only watches Fox news, is a Tea Party radical, has a poster of Bush above your bed who still thinks the South will rise again.

Its obviaaaas!

I can so see this coming from BCO and W1z4rd

 

[Hard Rain]

If you have any sort of sceptical outlook pertaining to anthropogenic climate change then you must hate science, obviously...

 

[Fazda]

Remember, if you don't fully agree with the status quo of the climate change debate then you are an uneducated redneck hillbilly who only watches Fox news, is a Tea Party radical, has a poster of Bush above your bed who still thinks the South will rise again.

Its obviaaaas!

That's about it in a nutshell.

 

[Alan]

If you have any sort of sceptical outlook pertaining to anthropogenic climate change then you must hate science, obviously...

As you well know there is no room for scepticism in science.

 

[BCO]

The most interesting part of the climate debate for me is not who is right or wrong, but the decision to use the word incontrivertable - ie not open for discussion.

Unfortunate choice of word, agreed. Although one definition of "incontrovertable" - especially when referring to a type of evidence - is the following:

Incontrovertible evidence is a colloquial term for evidence introduced to prove a fact that is supposed to be so conclusive that there can be no other truth as to the matter; evidence so strong it overpowers contrary evidence, directing a fact-finder to a specific and certain conclusion.

Again, it's unfortunate that the word "incontrovertable" can also mean "unquestionable," as science, by definition aims to question.

I dont think think there is a single other topic in all of science not open for discussion, and that even includes eugenics. I think I would get less ridicule for saying that there are racial differences than if I said the evidence for AGW was anything less than concrete.

And this is something that pro GW people, and that includes people on this board, miss. Anytime something is not open for discussion, you should immediately be suspicious of it.

Speaking for myself, and many others on this board I'm sure, anthropogenic global warming is not "not open for discussion" - rather, the notion of the current "discussion" or "debate" is a spurious one. As things currently stand there is no plausible alternate theory that better explains current warming. In light of this, and in light of the very large amounts of evidence in favour of anthropogenic global warming it is safe to say that there is no "debate" and that the evidence for AGW is incontrovertable (in the sense that the evidence in favour of AGW is so strong it overpowers contrary evidence).

 

[killadoob]

Not true BCO there is another very plausible alternate theory

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast30may_1m/

Mars and pluto are heating up as well during this period and i know for a fact there no humans there pumping out all sorts of nasties

 

[WilD_CaT]

Unfortunate choice of word, agreed. Although one definition of "incontrovertable" - especially when referring to a type of evidence - is the following:

Again, it's unfortunate that the word "incontrovertable" can also mean "unquestionable," as science, by definition aims to question.



Speaking for myself, and many others on this board I'm sure, anthropogenic global warming is not "not open for discussion" - rather, the notion of the current "discussion" or "debate" is a spurious one. As things currently stand there is no plausible alternate theory that better explains current warming. In light of this, and in light of the very large amounts of evidence in favour of anthropogenic global warming it is safe to say that there is no "debate" and that the evidence for AGW is incontrovertable (in the sense that the evidence in favour of AGW is so strong it overpowers contrary evidence).

CERN's CLOUD experiment... (BTW CERN are the Hadron Collider guys)

 

[Arthur]

CERN's CLOUD experiment... (BTW CERN are the Hadron Collider guys)

And while you mention the LHC ... it could well be that one of the major motivations for building the LHC -- to find CDM -- is based on a theory rapily being disproved. With every passing test it seems the notions positing CDM are collapsing fast. Just last week a major physics conference expressed dismay and even "panic" that CDM, a key advance on Big Bang Theory to account for mass of the universe and related forces, will probably turn out to be seriously wrong. What a delight to hear real science "spoken".

When vast complex systems (such as planetary and atmospheric sciences) move in a millisecond from "barely understood" to "incontrovertible" with a highly-charged political agenda we move out of science and into a priori belief systems such as religion and politics. AGW crossed that threshhold more than a decade ago, once the politicians saw its potential for their own agendas. Of course they control the money that their pet scientists get, so it's a wonderful mutual back-scratching system. Reality is something else.

 

[BCO]

CERN's CLOUD experiment... (BTW CERN are the Hadron Collider guys)

CLOUD's results do not undermine AGW theory. CLOUD provided a lot of valuable information on how ionisation from cosmic rays helps form aerosols, which in turn help form clouds. It doesn't say anything about how this affects climate. The lead author of the CLOUD paper even said "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step".

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

 

[w1z4rd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Nice post, ty

 

[Palimino]

Remember, if you don't fully agree with the status quo of the climate change debate then you are an uneducated redneck hillbilly who only watches Fox news, is a Tea Party radical, has a poster of Bush above your bed who still thinks the South will rise again.

You also have a hound dwarg named “Blue”, wear bib overalls and play the banjo pretty good.

 

[w1z4rd]

Remember, if you don't fully agree with the status quo of the climate change debate then you are an uneducated redneck hillbilly who only watches Fox news, is a Tea Party radical, has a poster of Bush above your bed who still thinks the South will rise again.

Its obviaaaas!

Thats so funny in a weird kinda true way, haha

You also have a hound dwarg named “Blue”, wear bib overalls and play the banjo pretty good.

Im hosing myself on this side. The mental image!

 

[Palimino]

You also have a hound dwarg named “Blue”, wear bib overalls and play the banjo pretty good.

You run a moonshine still in the mountains and your family relationships are so tangled that you are your own uncle.