Another Global Warming Dissenter Stands Up


Pages: 1 2

Another respected scientist took a stand in the worldwide debate over the source and importance of climate change. Last week, Dr. Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, professor at large at the University of Oslo and a 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) in protest over the society’s rigid stance on climate change.

A part of the official APS statement with regard to global warming states that the “evidence is incontrovertible” that human activities have led to rising global temperatures through increased emissions of carbon dioxide. Like many scientists in a variety of disciplines, Giaever was offended by the implication that the science is settled and no further research or discussion about the issue is needed.

“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of a proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” Giaever said in an e-mail to Kate Kirby, executive officer of APS. “The claim…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.”

The idea that global warming is such a critical issue that the kind of intellectual debate that is central to the scientific process should not be allowed goes back to the Clinton administration. It was then that Vice President Al Gore stated with finality that the “science was settled” and the supposed crisis was so acute that the traditional scientific process should be abandoned.

That pronouncement, especially coming from someone with no scientific training like Mr. Gore, offended and continues to offend many a scientist. Nonetheless, a number of scientific organizations like APS, the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, have definitively stated that dangerous global warming is real and that mankind is definitely the cause.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    Bravo! The good Professor!

    The fact that they [the Commissars of science] have chosen to walk the path of "political correctness" is not just disturbing, but disgusting! They have betrayed the scientific method under no such pressure which existed in brutal dictatorship like the former USSR. They willingly became Lysenko-like scoundrels just because of the intrinsic misery of their human qualities.

  • Amused

    Hmmmm,,,,nobel laureat "dissents " against 90% of the entire body of scientists of several diciplines …….

    Follow the money . Whose camp is Dr.Giaever in ? Anyone can knock Al Gore , he's a politician , not a scientist, therefore an easy target . Try disputing the guys at Scientific American , or any other credible prestigious scientific publication .

    • William_Z

      90%? Where'd you get this comic book number?

    • DeserveLiberty

      I agree entirely: "Follow the money." — The "study" of global warming is an enterprise that is nearly completely funded by government grants and government-funded programs in search of a dubious hazard from which the government must "save" us. In this age, the wedding of politics/government with the scientific community is rife with intellectual corruption. All that intellectual power would better serve humanity in other ways, but for now, the money is in "global warming."

      • Jim_C

        Yes, government funds scientific research towards ends it thinks are important. Gosh, can you believe it?

        • DeserveLiberty

          Government does not think or make decisions. Even among institutions that make claims to altruism, it is individuals who think and make choices and decision. Self-serving corruption exists throughout government and government becomes the "filter" that prevents accountability from being exercised by the ultimate bill-payers; the citizens who have the fruits of their labor confiscated to fund the "great ideas" of the ivory towers. For instance: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/18/nih-ba

    • Solinkaa

      Forgive me, but Scientific American is not a "credible prestigious scientific publication." It is a mainstream publication easily accessible to non-scientists, and as such repeats what is ideologically deemed "in" at any given time. Were it around in 300 or so years ago, it would be telling us that there is no question about the existence of phogiston.

      I wouldn't call Gore an easy target, I would call him a dangerous demagogue who influences the public discourse and political decisions in a way that will have disastrous consequences for the population. Vide the recent harsh winters in Europe, where the governments were completely unprepared, and atrocious "green taxes" and largely pointless recycling efforts that cost ordinary people considerable amounts of money. To pauperise the populace because a current approved idea is politically sound is criminal. It happened in the Soviet Union, it happened in Easter Europe. It saddens me that it is now happening in Western nations.

      • Jim_C

        19 National Academies of Science worldwide say "Global warming is real." They are in consensus. Scientific consensus happens when the weight of evidence becomes too much to argue.

        On the other hand, the good folks at Exxon Mobil are offering $10,000 bounties for deniers. Hmmm, wonder why?

        • intrcptr2

          Consensus is not a scintific term, it is a political one.

          It was not consensus that led people to accept Newton, or Kobernik, or Einstein; it was ruthless, cold fact. AGW has none.

          Yeah, ten grand, great!! Care to go add these up? http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&…

          • Jim_C

            And this is a political article, so what's your point?

            Scientists reach consensus in the face of overwhelming evidence. Given the ambition and talents of scientists, you'd think more in that field, alone, would be inclined to disprove it.

    • johnnywoods

      The argument is settled, certain scientists agree with me that Algore is a liar.

    • RAS

      Try reading some real science. Recommend you check out Singer and Avery's book on climate change over the centuries. Its real science, not knee jerk emotion, show me the grant junk.
      Ever wonder why Greenland is called Greenland when its mostly covered with ice?

      • intrcptr2

        Um, Vikings were colorblind??

  • rothrcfi

    HMMMM – I love how you can pull a number like 90% right out of your hindquarters just because you personally believe the political trash that's been spewing from the left. And how much "study" have you put into the statistics to grab 90% as a number?

    Time for you to folow the money and see why these supposed scientists would agree with such an unsubstantiated theory as global warming when governmental money is being tossed in that direction for people who can find "proof" of the Al Gore claptrap.

    • Jim_C

      Among climate scientists–you know, the guys who actually study the climate? the number is more like 97%.

      So actually the claptrap, as usual, comes from the Right. Ain't too much of a stretch to go from being an ignorant buffoon about evolution to being an ignorant buffoon about climate change.

    • Jim_C

      News flash: government funds scientific research. I know, big shocker.

      "Supposed scientists." Follow the money? Well it must just be everywhere, since virtually all the major scientific organizations in this country as well as every major nation's National Academy of Science endorse the idea that global warming is real. UNAMBIGUOUSLY.

      Boy that's a lot of bamboozled scientists, isn't it, Einstein?

      • johnnywoods

        Prove your point with facts sir not just your opinion.

        • Jim_C

          johnnywoods: it is not my opinion that the worlds' foremost scientific organizations say global warming is real. It is a fact.

          • johnnywoods

            30,000 other scientists dis agree, including 9,000 Phd,`s

      • intrcptr2

        I am SO glad you brought up Albert's ghost.
        As I recall, it was gumint money that paid for the super weapon which he dedicated the last years of his life trying to destroy.

        Ah yes, it would seem a billion Chinamen can't inded be wrong, especially if they're getting rich from not being bound by anti-AGW policies here in the U and Europe.

        Since when does the number of opinion holders determine truth? Or perhaps I should suggest you accept the testimony of the 2 billion plus human beings who believe Christ arose from the dead, and convert. :)

    • intrcptr2

      Is that possible, what with his head already up there?

  • IG IRISH

    Can we spell "S C A M"…..all a scam – follow the money…love how Saint Gore has tallied up a little dough-ray-me in the last 10 years or so….maybe to the tune of 100 million?…here in Canada we have Saint David Suzuki who is going to save all us IGNORANT Canadians from global warning….guess we are all racists!

  • tagalog

    The warming of the earth over the past 15,000 years is directly proportional to the increase in human comfort and prosperity during the same period.

    • Jim_C

      Well, there is a bright side to it!

      • tagalog

        So what's the position, that global warming is bad for the earth or bad for humans?

        Actually, in this instance, any global warming that might occur won't harm the earth no matter how much warmth there is; the earth will go on, as will life. It's possible that humans MIGHT be affected if the increase in temperature is big enough for long enough, although an increase of that type is not predicted even by the most panicked scientists.

  • StephenD

    It is our responsibility to make our adverse impact on the Earth as little as possible through personal efforts. We are charged with being good stewards. With that being said let me say this:
    I don't know about all the scientific "evidence" but what I do know is the Earth is a big old girl and has been around for quit a while. She has survived Earthquakes and Ice Ages, Meteors and Volcanoes. I contend that she can certainly heal herself from the limited impact we humans make on her. We should not have to buy “indulgence” (carbon credits) from the likes of Al Gore to prove our care for her.

    • mlcblog

      Yeah, who died and gave Al Gore charge of the carbon so he could get paid by whatever fools will do that?

  • tarleton

    G W is a result of the incestious relationship between science and political ideology

  • Gino

    Think what could be done with the wasted money spent on trying to prove humans are ruining earth. Just the regulations alone are over the top costly

  • Ben

    The Earth is so complicated physical system that the only reliable model of its climat is impossible.Compare the accuracy of short-termed prognosises and 0.8 degree during the 150 years.
    The leftist idea of blame of western capitalism combined with the 3 world countries wish to get the compensation billions are behind the ACC.

    • tagalog

      Just for the record, it's 0.8 degrees C, PLUS or MINUS 0.3 degrees. There's a pretty significant margin for error.

  • theleastthreat

    Who is more dangerous to our planet? Al Gore as a Scientist or Barack Obama as an Economist?

    • DeserveLiberty

      Wow. That really might be a toss-up!

      • intrcptr2

        Indeed!!

        Good thing I'm not eating dinner right now.

  • Javelin

    "Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act" Bonhoffer
    Bravo to Dr. Giaever and all who speak out now.
    It seems to me the global warming/climate change movement is a tool by which those who wish to control can convince the ill informed & uninformed that the developed world owes the undeveloped world…something. After all its only fair & just isn't it?

    • Jim_C

      Oh, does it "seem to you?" Hey, whatever feels right, right?

  • Jim_C

    Cool, another dissenter! How many is that now? Three? Four?

    • mlcblog

      The best part is that they are generally very important ones. And, no it's not 3-4 but hundreds have signed a paper to state their discontent.

      • Jim_C

        Well, it looks to me as if they are also very old ones, as well.

        • mlcblog

          old is bad?

  • Jim_C

    There is considerable disagreement about global warming, except among the international community of climate scientists.

    • Jim_C

      Well, them, and every major scientific organization in this country.

      And the world, really.

      In other words, the vast majority of scientists in the world are fools who believe global warming is real.

      • intrcptr2

        Hmm, re your comment to Javelin; do scientists "believe" in AGW, or is it settled fact?

        Funny how this works, no?

        • Jim_C

          For there to be that widespread agreement, it must be settled fact.

    • mlcblog

      I believe you are incorrect about the amount of agreement among client scientists.

      • Jim_C

        Show me.

        • mlcblog

          Find it on your own.

  • Bill Fish

    Global Warming. Global Cooling. Climate chaos. Climate weirding.

    It is all confusing; Let us all call it

    CACA (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alteration)..

    Some people are into music. Others are into Sports. Albert Gore is into CACA.

    • HelgaMarie

      I really like this…CACA….no better way to put it….thanks,Bill!

  • 080

    Professor Freeman Dyson, an eminent American physicist, has also expressed his doubts about man-made global warming. He based his skepticism on two grounds. First, the question has become heavily politicized. That in itself should be sufficient to show that we are not dealing any longer with a scientific inquiry. The second basis was that the global warming theorists base themselves on mathematical modeling. Dyson says that such modeling is also used in astronomical theories which are frequently proved wrong.

  • E. Phillips

    The temperatures referred to in the third paragraph are amazing (or absurd). Since absolute zero is-273.15K (or "degrees Kelvin" as cited here), anything colder is not possible, at least not in our universe.

    • ajnn

      the punctuation in front of the number is NOT A MINUS SIGN.

      It is an 'approximation' sign commonly used in the natural sciences.

  • Anamah

    Progressives had kidnapped many topics such environment as hooks to engage voters in key sectors as electoral strategy.
    Climate and man made global climate change is an important bastion that has been used to build the most outrageous scientific fraud. Government regulations is a dishonest way to make multi-billion dollar business, making more expensive productivity, destroying honest business while generating huge fortunes into the inner circle handling regulations in this political power.

  • mlcblog

    I, too, was trained in the scientific method. It is simple logic and proves the truth incontrovertibly every time. As such, I have been alarmed to see it being abandoned by the anti-fossil fuel and coal and progress lefties but I am more thrilled to see this man and other like him stand up for scientific and personal integrity.

    • Jim_C

      The reason the vast majority of climate scientists agree about global warming, and why most of the world's scientific academies are also on record in agreement, is not due to fashion, opinion, or political expedience but to the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence showing global warming to be real. If you truly respect science as you say, you must understand this. And also look for the qualifications of those who say it is a "hoax."

      Even the gentleman discussed in the article, above–a physicist–appears to object to a kind of rhetorical certainty rather than to the conclusions based on evidence.

      When it comes to science, I'll take the National Academy of Sciences over Rush Limbaugh any day.

      • mlcblog

        I simple disagree with you. I believe the science is not in. It is just not standing up to the simple basic standard that even I know.

        I wonder if you are aware of the political motivation of many of the global-warming proponents. There is a huge undercurrent of 1960's hippie dippie thinking in the scientific community as well as across the board in our country who want to get rid of gasoline-driven vehicles, coal-driven industries, and basically hobble our power structure. The motivation is to throw the proverbial monkey wrench into the works.

        I know. I used to be one of them, when Earth Day was just beginning in the early 1970's, but thankfully I was able to extricate myself from their morass.

  • Flowerknife_us

    Man produces Carbon Dioxide as a by-product of living.

    How many Humans need to be removed before Mr. Gore iand his cronies deem Mother Earth "saved"?

    • mlcblog

      Don't forget Al's flatulence, especially when he breathes out while talking. These things must be taken into consideration if we are to have an accurate measurement.

      Jim C, just funnin!!

  • Sprinklerman

    Regarding AGW I have three questions;
    1. What evidence indicates that the temperature change anticipated by AGW to this planet will cause catastrophic problems?
    2. If we produce CO2 and plants use it to absorb it and produce food and Oxygen, then why is it that the only method proposed by those like Al Gore for reversing this trend is to control carbon by reducing our CO2 output or buying "carbon credits"?
    3. How does buying carbon credits reduce our CO2 output?

  • tagalog

    If there is a heat sink that exists in the deep ocean, why is that somehow "masking" global warming? Isn't the existence of this simply a new scientific fact that should be taken into account in gauging the effect of heating the troposphere?

  • mlcblog

    Remember when the guys over in England, the supposed standard for all the global warming info, were exposed and that they had simply chosen to override and ignore certain data which did not support their theory??!! preposterous. And then they want us to respect their "science." They famously hid the decline.

  • David Torp

    I also think the "THEORY" on climate change is far from settled. However, I do believe that all this conjecture does unfortunately detract from discussion on what I think should be the real issue – which I think we all should agree on. The real problem is that we are treating the planet like one big garbage-can where we burn and land-fill everything on the planet as quick as our income allows.The world's current population means this is no longer sustainable; not even in the short-term.