Ticker sent me this information which is printed at NewsMax and other sources and I just had to post it. Mostly, because it supports the truths in my post two posts down, and because Ivar Giaever teaches at RPI, where my wonderful father went to college, and because RPI is very near to dear ol' Troy, New York (where my family first settled when they arrived in America). But, I digress. Check this out:Nobel Prize-winning physicist and erstwhile Obama supporter Ivar Giaever has resigned as a Fellow from the prestigious American Physical Society to protest the organization's promotion of manmade global warming fears.
Norwegian-born Dr. Giaever shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for work at General Electric related to superconductors.
In an email to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby on Sept. 13, which was obtained by the Climate Depot website, Giaever said:
"Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the [APS] statement below:
"'Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.
"'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 goes on to say: "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 degrees 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 Barack Obama's key scientific supporters and joined more than 70 Nobel Science laureates in endorsing him in an October 2008 open letter.
But in March 2009, Giaever was one of more than 100 co-signers of a letter to President Obama criticizing his stance on global warming. The letter stated in part: "We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."
Giaever, now a professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, is one of several prominent scientists to resign from the APS over its global warming position. Among them is physicist Hal Lewis, who wrote to the organization before his death this past May: "Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life." . (end of story) (Z: I wish it was the end of the story, actually)
The truth's finally coming out. But, of course, these are just experts in the field; what do they have to lend to the global warming scam, right? :-) And, if you gave some of them some bucks, they'll back Gore, anyway, huh? Let me just add one thing which, in a normal world of informed Americans, wouldn't have to be said. When Conservatives (and experts in the field) balk against the Global Warming scam, that does not mean we want to destroy our oceans, forests or air.
z
33 comments:
When Conservatives (and experts in the field) balk against the Global Warming scam, that does not mean we want to destroy our oceans, forests or air.
----------
It likely means you think you can have your cake AND eat it.
Ducky likes scams as long as they're propagated by a leftist snake oil man.
Go stare at a jar of piss. I hear it's ethereal.
The fundamental problem that the activists and alarmists have gone way past the science.
Scientists pursuing this subject with the hypothesis that we are causing global warming are nonetheless upset with Reverend Al Gore and his International Church of Gaia. Their scolding apocalyptic alarums are very unscientific
What it means is any cold hard cash thats been earned will not be redistributed because of junk science.
Nothing will ever convince my liberal neighbor from Canada that global warming is a scam. My neighbor swallowed Gore's movie -- hook, link, and sinker.
Ducky, please read Silverfiddle's comment."way past the science."
One needn't do that to save the water and the air and trees.
Brooke, good one !
Elbro; in the Obama atmosphere, probably everything is redistributed but common sense!
Always; he's got little kids unable to sleep for fear NYC is going to flood, too. Who can blame adults from Canada?
Everybody; we know some actions WORK. L.A.'s smog , at least where i live now, is almost nonexistent, and when I was in high school, we couldn't take deep breaths without feeling a very sharp pain in the chest. Those days are over; something worked.
Less car emissions, who can argue with that?
Watching what's being poured into our waters...who'd argue that?
it's the apocalyptic "EVERYTHING MUST BE GREEN OR ELSE" stuff that needs to be reined in.
And, next time we give half a billion to a solar panel company, let's make sure China's not making them cheaper before we give the loan?
Z I am sure you have heard of Maurice Strong. Another power player behind the a One World Government by way of the Global Warming Hoax.
It's really amazing how the left complains about big money corporations when in fact they are being manipulated by even bigger money:
http://the-classic-liberal.com/maurice-strong/
My nephew went to RPI, too! Great school!
They wanted $10 billion from US in Copenhagen. 500 million wasn't even the tip of the iceberg. (Pun intended)
Z: I alluded to the Giaever thing in a previous post with a link to WUWT, but I guess I need to be more descriptive.
Ducky: Yes, the AGW alarmists are trying to have their cake and eat YOUR's, too. We all know that CO2 contributes to the warming of the planet, but there is NO SCIENCE showing 20 ft rises in sea levels, more frequent extreme weather events, more violent weather events, all due to human CO2 emissions.
All this stuff is over the top speculation, and is lapped up by people who want to stop using fossil fuels, and people who want to control others' lives.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/19/us-atlas-ice-idUSTRE78I4UG20110919
There's MORE...the fun never quits.
Thanks, Elbro.
Bob, thanks.
FJ, REALLY good school!
But, of course, these are just experts in the field
Ivar Giaever is a fine biophysicist. He won his Nobel Prize 38 years ago. He has published exactly zero papers in the field of climate science. Hardly an expert. APS has 48,000 members and less than 1/4 of 1% of them had a problem with the APS statement.
how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?
Argument from incredulity is hardly scientific. The peer reviewed information is available for anyone to see.
The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degrees 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."
"The claim" has a mountain of peer reviewed scientific data to back it up. If he can refute it, then do it using the scientific method. We are already seeing the effects of CC.
The fundamental problem that the activists and alarmists have gone way past the science.
A partial list of scientific societies and organizations that have "gone way past the science".
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America, Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China, Royal Society, United Kingdom, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia, Academié des Sciences, France, Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany, Indian National Science Academy, India, Science Council of Japan, Japan, Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa, Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico, Union of Concerned Scientists, Woods Hole Research Center, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), American Meteorological Society (AMS), National Research Council, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), American Geophysical Union, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members), Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London, Engineers Australia, American Association of State Climatologists, National Center for Atmospheric Research, NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), World Meteorological Organization, American Astronomical Society, American Institute of Physics.
Their scolding apocalyptic alarums are very unscientific
And you know this, how?
as I said in the lower one; global warming is a wonderful way to get grants and make money. You're surprised about the list? and you'd besmirch this man; apparently someone thought his admonitions were valid :-)
As was Harold Lewis.
Sad that liberals can't understand the broader picture; if you read my comments, you might better understand..?
It's the hoax of APOCALYPSE and how it's nearly ruining businesses which have far too many restrictions on them which must be addressed.
Bully for your list.
Let's get realistic, realize we must do all we can to protect our earth; and be a little more adult and less hysterical about supposed future threats ..... stop the exaggerated regulations.
Science is whatever the statists believe it is.
"Their scolding apocalyptic alarums are very unscientific"
And you know this, how?
Because we've read their emails.
As I said before, if you're a wacko disbeliever, write a letter to your future generations about your uninformed beliefs. Put it in a safe place. I'm betting your descendants will think of you as the family idiot.
thanks, Bd...and your yours will remember you ruined their future. Nice work.
Just how much debt do YOU think's enough?
Because we've read their emails.
But, you didn't know what you were reading. Three major investigations clear CRU.
The Committies findings are in agreement with the governments assessment that the disclosure of emails from CRU does not undermine the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. Indeed, the conclusion that human activity is causing the Earth to warm is taken from multiple strands of global evidence that stretches across scientific disciplines and extend far beyond the work of any single University. The Government responce to the House of commons Science and Technology Committee investigation.
The latest investigation by the U.S. Commerce Department was conducted after Inhofe requested an inquiry into the emails on May 26, 2010. The response, sent to Inhofe this past Friday, states:
In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network] dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures.
Sir Muir Russell, the senior civil servant who led a six-month inquiry into the affair, said
the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. "The honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt ... We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."
Craig:
There are simply not mountains of evidence of the ridiculous claims of the climate alarmists. Name one empirical paper that shows that the sensitivity of CO2 will cause more than approximately 1 degree per double of CO2 concentration. You can't. All you will find are circular reasoning papers built on assumptions feeding unproven numerical models.
Many of the studies that make up the mountains of academic evidence should be embarrassing to the authors, like the study on the poor Polar Bear, and the follow up studies that resulted in the classification of Polar Bears as an endangered species. The original study was written using a one fly-over sample of four or maybe three (depending on which part of the paper you read) drowned bears, with the assumption that it was part of a random sample in a process that was far from random. This is the kind of garbage upon which you rely for your religious assertions.
When you read the follow up studies, you find that those authors relied not only on those four (or three) drowned bears, but also on the predictions of global temperature increases as predicted by the IPCC models. Guess what? The IPCC models have never been even near correct. You are betting your ass on a house of cards.
Your argument that you have to be a climate scientist to pass judgement on climate science rings false. Those who are in real science know that climate science is at the bottom of the academic food chain with its lack of discipline, maturity, and astounding ignorance of mathematics and the scientific method.
Atmospheric physics is physics. Chemistry is chemistry. Mathematics are mathematics.
So called climate science tries to tie all sorts of disciplines together. A good physicist, or engineer, or even an economist who specializes in econometrics can pass judgement on most of the so-called climate studies out there. The shocking truth is that many laypersons are better mathematicians than the authors of climate papers. Reference the fraudulent stuff published by Michael Mann, Steig, etc.
There are lots of educated people out there, and you don't have to be a farmer to know when you have a rotten egg, which you certainly have.
Perhaps you can take take some time to look at some data available to all, like the accumulation of CO2 concentrations over the last dozen or so years (exponential increases), versus the increase, or decrease, in average global temperature (zero).
This data tells you all by itself that something in the climate system is much more powerful than CO2. Your religion is false.
OMG, Craig. I just scanned a couple of your comments, and did not fully read them. Please accept my apologies for not understand the full extent of your opinions. You are a full-on idiot. READ THE EMAILS. I will send you the entire zipped package of Climate Gate emails.
Any reasonable reading of these documents will tell you that Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, and others are rotten apples. I have been following the unfolding soap opera of denial of global warming flacks for years, and if you want a decent background, spend a few bucks and get A. W. Monfort's "Hockey Stick Illusions".
Just look at what you said about the resulting white-wash investigations. "the "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the world-leading Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are not in doubt. " How did you get that message? Are you daft? Can you read?
Good, it's high time people started calling these socialists out for what they really are.
Unfortunately, we in Australia are being led down an expensive rabbit hole by a socialist who also insists that we're all turning the world into some sort of hot waste land.
Climate change bullshittery is the new Lysenkoism.
To All:
If you have time please read this linked article by Matt Ridley, Room For All . Mr. Ridley says some interesting things about how the world can handle more population than at the present.
Name one empirical paper that shows that the sensitivity of CO2 will cause more than approximately 1 degree per double of CO2 concentration.
Your 1 degree per 2XCO2 most likely comes from Lindzen Choi 2009. LC09 is very similar to a paper written 3 years earlier – Forster & Gregory (2006) , that came to essentially opposite conclusions. Takmeng Wong and Chris O'Dell have a comprehensive takedown of the flawed LC09 here. You can start here if you're interested. 2.9 degree increase from 2XCO2. I don't expect you to believe it but, you may want to read something besides the denier stuff to know what you are actually trying to refute. It might make your arguments a little sharper.
...like the study on the poor Polar Bear... This is the kind of garbage upon which you rely for your religious assertions.
Are you referring to the "note " written by Dr. Charles Monnett and published in scientific journal, Polar Biology? It was an observation he made while studying bowhead whales. He brought it to the attention of a polar bear expert and was told that what he saw was highly unusual. He was encouraged to publish his observations, without conclusions, and his findings passed peer review and subsequent comment by the scientific community. He was later, 5 years later, interviewed by criminal investigators on charges of misconduct. A complaint was filed on behalf of Monnett. Scroll down to the transcript of the interview to see what kind of bullshit scientists are subjected to for merely reporting what they observe.
The IPCC models have never been even near correct.
Can you substantiate this claim?
and if you want a decent background, spend a few bucks and get A. W. Monfort's "Hockey Stick Illusions".
Aw, geeez. You can't be serious? More homework for you.
Just look at what you said...
No Bob. I didn't say that, Sir Muir Russell did after a 6 month investigation of "climategate".
You are a full-on idiot.
OK, Bob. Then, so are the members of all those, and more, scientific organizations I listed in my earlier comment. I suggest you are wasting your remarkable talents commenting on a relatively insignificant (no offense, Z) blog. Publish, my friend. If you can refute the evidence of AGW with evidence of your own, do it. You will be world famous and change the course of scientific inquiry!
Craig,
Why does the "science is settled" crowd want more research money?
QED.
Why does the "science is settled" crowd want more research money?
I would like to know who's part of this crowd. Since three's a crowd, give me 3 climate scientists who have said "the science is settled". Remember, Al Gore is not a scientist.
Craig: Do you actually think that I need to refute catastrophic global warming? Nahh!
The truth is that nobody has to refute catastrophic AGW. It has not been proven in the first place.
Catastrophic global warming has never been empirically shown. Period. As I commented previously, there is not one empirical paper showing anything like the claims of the sky-is-falling crowd.
We all know CO2 contributes to a warming of the atmosphere. That's the physics of the deal. The unphysical part is the belief that running unproven numerical models complete with groundless estimates of critical parameters in any way approximates the real world. That's the so-called science you are reading about.
Do some research on scientific consensus. They have been many, and they fail all the time. Eugenics. Causes of stomach ulcers. Alar. DDT as a carcinogen. There is almost an endless list. Take head of Beamish's comment on Lysenkoism.
Climate science in and of itself is a small field, with only a few dozen people virtually controlling the publication of papers and the news media. If you would do your due diligence in the Climate Gate emails, you can see this clique in action. It isn't pretty, nor is their science.
As for posting on this blog, the general subject matter tends to be on a political plane. As you know, the phrase "Climate Change" is a marketing phrase being used in the political discourse. Almost by definition, climate changes and words to that effect are pretty well meaningless. Catastrophic global warming is a political belief, and not carefully considered science.
Sorry I called you an idiot. It was late at night, and I could not believe somebody was still parroting the ignorant stuff you wrote.
Craig says: " Your 1 degree per 2XCO2" That approximately one degree is what you get from the basic physics. That number was around long before L&C.
"Are you referring to the "note " written by Dr. Charles Monnett " Yep. It was sort of peer reviewed, too. Read it. It is interesting but not scientific. This from a man who did not have time to do an annual report on a project for which he is the supervisor, but he has time to write a paper, circulate it in his office, and get it published. The wonderful thing about this kind of garbage is that other brain-dead stalwarts jumped on this and used it to leverage more studies that purported to show that the bear population was in great danger. Like I said, it is a house of cards.
"The IPCC models have never been even near correct. Can you substantiate this claim? "
Easy peasy: Lucia's blog is pretty well neutral. See the Blackboard .
If you are curious to see if Jim Hansen's famous 1988 projections ever worked out, see Lucia's analysis here.
The models are not adequate.
I am serious about you reading Monfort's book. He did an excellent job in tracking down blog posts and emails from the scandal's participants. In my review of the book I found nothing wanting. I will get around to the RC "take-down" later when I have time. In my experience those guys are great at taking down straw men, and even in inventing their own statistical tests like Mann does. Creative group.
The problem with Muir Russel is that he only interviewed Jones one time, if my memory serves correctly. Not once did Muir Russel ask Jones if he had erased the emails as disclosed in the Climate Gate documents. Muir Russel apparently thought it was not fair to put someone in a position to perjure themselves. It wasn't cricket, or something.
Plus, Muir Russel never interviewed the originators of the FOI requests, either, which Jones and his staff had stonewalled for a decade or more. No testimony, no investigation.
The FOI's were official requests for what should have been publicly available data and methods. As most high school students know, you can have the greatest experiment in the world, but if others cannot replicate it, you don't have science.
Jones, Briffa, Mann, and others were all guilty of hiding their data and methodologies. When some of these documents became available, the greatest take-downs in the history of science were scored by lay people. Amazing, isn't it?
Why does the "science is settled" crowd want more research money?
I would like to know who's part of this crowd.Since three's a crowd, give me 3 climate scientists who have said "the science is settled".
See above, your own list of scientific societies and organizations that have gone past science and into absurdism in their refusal to entertain conflicting data and competing theories.
Remember, Al Gore is not a scientist.
Neither are most of his left-wing imbecilic dipshit followers.
Ya, that was my question;
Craig's list was apparently a long list of far more erudite experts than the two I have posted on who've seen through the hoax and had to wait till they were nearly retired or near death to speak out.
Why ask for 3? odd
Z said: " Craig's list was apparently a long list of far more erudite experts"
That's funny! Craig's List, indeed.
Craig's list is a list of professional societies from around the world that have signed on to the global warming meme. Not all have signed up to the catastrophic part, though. Here in the USA, the AGU (the org from which Giaever resigned) has had an internal fight about the top down forcing of the AGU statement of AGW.
The list is interesting from several viewpoints. If you are in the "follow the money" mode, you will recognize that rice bowls will be broken if these professional societies tell the truth. No statement, no grants.
The funding for pretty much all research in climate is controlled by political organs. Governments fund the largest glut of spending on academic research in history. Just in the US, $38 Billion has been awarded in the last decade for climate research.
That is why climate research is biased to the point of recommending greater government control of society through control if its means of powering an economy.
The message has been that if you want to get in on the gravy train, you MUST hew to the AGW dogma.
It gets real simple, real quick. Science has become political because politicians, like the former VP and Senator Al Gore, control the government research grant purse strings in the Western World.
Post a Comment