Bishop Hill A Nobel deed
Sep 14, 2011 Climate: Sceptics Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever has resigned from the American Physical Society citing its stance on global warming:
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: xxxx@aps.org
Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APSDear 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
It's funny, but I thought that scepticism on the global warming question was tantamount to being "anti-science". Isn't that what all the unthinking science gurus say - the Simon Singhs, the Paul Nurses, the New Scientist clique and the Scientific American gang and the Chris Mooneys and the George Monbiots?
How are they going to explain this?
Reader Comments (53)
They'll be out there finding a link to big oil.
No explanation required... just smears . connections with Heartland, tobacco, oil, etc,etc,etc usual stuff... probably with a bit of old, past it, got his nobel 40 years ago... etc, etc
will make no impact.
Sad but the political climate we are in.. I can feel the carbonbrief and Bob Ward, composing their embellishments as I type.. probably getting overtime.
He's in his 80s. Any bets on how quickly some alarmist will say he's senile?
the meme will be " the emeritus effect" as they have done with Freeman Dyson, Happer, etc.......but the Bart "control theory" idea has got the team worried....however you can sense that this area is outside their expertise and even Nick Stokes is struggling to retain credibility. ...ok he lost it for me yesterday
key message
(how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?)
it is a proxy...what does it mean?
The APS will be embarrassed. Seems they awarded him their elite Oliver E. Buckley Prize.
It is Ivar, not Ivor.
Diogenes
The thing that impressed me the most at CA was that Bart is obviously an expert in his field and others can follow his lead, but he is clearly 'asking' others to follow and test his arguments. When he leaves his comfort zone and strays into atmospheric science he is the first to hold his hands up and say ' I don't know this is not my field' this is up to others to continue. More power to him I hope he is an example for those who have refrained in the past..
It's patently clear that he's mad/senile/misguided/ummm.....corrupt....
Umm......
If Watson (of Crick and Watson) can be destroyed comprehensively this shouldn't be a problem...
He's old.......and male........and white!
Obviously a gun-toting, pick-up driving, cousin-chasin' repuglican with deep psychotic tendencies.
Chris Mooney explained it all at Desmog the other day.
The Team has no concept of resigning over a matter of scientific principle, unless one of them is in a position to claim the evil deniers scalp
Ivar Giaever is a very highly respected scientist and I am certain that his stance will have an effect on those of his colleagues whos respect he has earned.
We can add Ivar Giaever's resignation to that of Hal Lewis and welcome this mans courage. Whatever the media throw at him, he will have the respect and admiration of the vast majority of visitors here at Bishop Hill and all like minded websites.
I salute you sir.
Big, big strong message. By far the strongest message this particular 24 hours will recieve.
How difficult must it have been for this elderly gentleman scientist to leave an organisation that he built his working life around and that he once loved deeply?
I admire his principles and courage but I can not even begin to imagine the despair that he must have felt when writing this letter.
All the Warmista say "We're gonna' boil any day!"
So why is summer cooler than May?
Al Gore is around I suppose.
Another day, another resignation - is there a crises here or are we just being swallowed in our own bubble of the blogospheare? There is somethinng happening but history always happens very slowly so don't get over excited!
Ivar Giaever sir, you have my utmost respect. Part of your legacy will be your honor.
I certainly hope that you read this blog as well as WUWT where you are received with highest regards.
Sincerely yours,
I agree lord b
however, we can see the ranks starting to mass around Bart.....Nick Stokes is working hard to refute, but does not seem to know what he is talking about. The whole climate defence mechanism - Dessler/.stokes etc..is strting to look pitiful...there is almost an implulse response at work there
"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.
Just how many members of the American Physical Society can live with this rediculous statement?
I would really like to know !
"How are they going to explain this?"
---
He's gone ga-ga. Like Morner or Theon.
World according to BCL:
"Everyone that disagrees with me is crazy."
The climatocracy will simply have the good Dr. erased from the record.
Indeed, to not see a change of 0.28% over 150 years as anything but immediately catastrophic is obviously ga-ga. And to think that the accuracy of the measured and calculated mass of a proton is in any way comparable to the accuracy of climate science is plainly stark raving bonkers, right BCL? Obviously, only one of these rigorous measurements has any chance of variability, while the other is incontrovertibly set in stone. To think that both can be questioned would be like saying something loopy like the scientific method dictates that any and all scientific theorems can and should be questioned.
He CC'd Fred Singer, amongst others, in on his resignation, so don't get any ideas about this being a principled old man quietly handing in his resignation. This is PR - pure and simple.
Once again, if you look at what he's actually writing about it, a lot of it is total rubbish. Same old 'not wamed since 1998/not enough weather stations' memes as ever, as well as a fun one I've not seen before, about requiring 2 30-year averages so you can see which is the higher. Don't think we'll see that one picked up by Hilly Billy types.
He's been coming up with this stuff for years as well, so this is in no way out of the blue.
Total non-story, except to a small and rather tragic minority, who desperately need stuff like this for validation.
There you are guys -ZDB has given you the official line from RC and the Team. !!
dnftt(s)
The IPCC's version of the science is actually all about 'cloud albedo effect' cooling. It's really warming. The physics they use to claim it exists is wrong. the satellite data are wrong because the same physics is used to process the data.
How do I know? Well, the first thing is that the World warms at the end of an ice age before CO2 rises so there is no significant amplification of CO20-AGW [it's no more than a ninth of that claimed].
Secondly, when you correct the physics, the albedo of the clouds that really swing the Earth's energy budget is reduced by pollution switching off droplet coarsening. It's the 2nd AIE that led to the warming at the end of the ice age.
"who desperately need stuff like this for validation."
Sep 15, 2011 at 5:43 AM | ZedsDeadBed
A Nobel laureate in his 80's needs "validation"? Certainly not for your kind! Your trolling hits a new low! You wish you had a quarter of this mans intellect! Shame on your predictable thoughts and post
Not warmed since 1998
Not enough weather stations
These are now "memes" apparently. A unit of cultural information - a practice or idea.
Of course in reality they are facts.
A non-story only interesting to the "tragic" minority.
ZBD your hubris knows no bounds. Your contributions here are increasingly nasty and worthless.
Underpinning the notable resignation (which I applaud) there is the much deeper issue of various organisations being manipulated into supporting IPCC's version of climate science under a different banner. It would be interesting to track down the mechanism and prime movers (people) behind this phenomenon.
Did the members of the APS spontaneously decide that there was a pressing need to come out in support of the IPCC. Or was it the case that one or more individuals from the AGW/IPCC camp went out of their way to engineer such statements of support which are then egregiously claimed (by some) as a 'formal review of IPCC's climate science'. If the latter is true, then the motivation is clearly political, aiming to use the imprimatur of such organisations as the APS to further advance PR in favour of IPCC.
Please think seriously about this issue. Many organisations are claimed to have 'endorsed' IPCC's science but I seriously doubt that they were independent of government moneys.
The IPCC's PR machine is extremely well oiled!
Here is Freeman Dyson on 'global temperature' myth: -
Freeman Dyson on YouTube
I'm afraid to say that I am starting to think that this is one example of the corruption of society. The role of government is not to raise tax in order to buy influence for it's own policy. The previous tv ads campaign was the start of the process this is a more subtle aproach.
This is not even a political issue, it's a basic societal issue, it doesn't matter what party leads the government. Democracy is being undermined by the very machine that is supposed to be underpinning it.
What is to be done to prevent it I don't know but the very fact that organisations, including charities, that benefit from the public purse can influence political decisions affecting that public purse is in a word corruption, and the worst part of it is that the same influential organisations are either oblivious to the fact or are party to it is an indication of the growing moral vacuum.
Oops wrong thread, intended for Nursing Times
Research reveals he bought a packet of 20 Benson and Hedges in the 1980's at a Shell petrol station. Conclusive proof of ties to Big Oil and the Merchants of Doubt.
@zdb... come on lass*... you are turning into a Political Kommisar... you post would do well on many sites, but not this one... Denunciation is not a tactic to likely have much success here...
How you considered it the other way. An 80 year old man, all he has left, all he can pass onto his loved ones is his reputation? Such a man is defined by his reputation.
Around the world their are Guardianistas and their equivalents spluttering into their muesli. There is a whole layer of society ready to tarnish this man's reputation. Yet he stood up just the same. Do you think that requires some courage? Or is an 80 year world renowned academic doing this for the cash or the kicks?
He knows that history will judge him. Even if it is usually written by the winner.
*you writing style always indicates "female"
OK, Zed - how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?
I'd love to know.
This is off the thread and I apologise. But I think it is an important point. I do NOT want it published as a blog post.
In Australia our Australian Broadcasting Commission is totally biased, in the way that the BBC is in the UK. But I feel this doesn't really matter.
In Australia we have the "Shock Jocks" on commercial radio. We also have Andrew Bolt, who is not a shock jock but a man who always gets his facts right and who has regular columns on a newspaper and a regular slot on Chanel 10, a commercial radio site.
Fewer and fewer people listen to the ABC in Ausatralia - they are bored stiff by repetition of the same old stuff on climate change.
More and more of them listen to the shock jocks. And the shock jocks are now getting more and more of their data from Andrew Bolt - so their accuracy is improving all the time.
Are there Shock Jocks in UK Commercial radio and TV?
SARGON
JC
Don't do it!
It only encourages them!
Its back, dont feed it!
Perhaps we need a 'are you sure you're not feeding the troll?' checkbox on the 'Post a New Comment' dialog, just to remind people and posters who missed the previous 'consensus' about this.
Peter
I have issued the same advice myself, but there are times... :-)
WRT this feeding trolls meme you are so keen on: it's either debate or stagnate.
By that definition, Zed stagnated long ago, since he never replies to anything asked of him, just fans more flames. I expect he's in the pay of Big Windmill.
[No]
His wikipedia page makes for interesting reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever
More smears about Fred Singer I see from the usual. Perhaps they could read what Fred has to say:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html
And whilst they are at it, perhaps they could answer one simple question. What is their scientific background?
Phillip Bratby: dnftt(s)
Perhaps in all upper case, Phillip?
[Response to clipped comment]
BBD
You are a serious commentator, whose contributions I always read with interest despite disagreeing with you most of the time.
As for ZDB, can I say politely that I rarely bother to read the contribution from the lady from Truro as they are virtually content free and she never answers even the most basic question.[Although today did mark a new low] She is also unnecessarily rude about both sceptics and lukewarmers.
It's not even chalk and cheese. I can well understand fellow commentators urging everybody DNFTT!
BBD
You cannot debate with a troll. God knows I've tried often enough.
The more you feed it the more it takes the thread off-track. That's what it's for; that's what it does. Every reply is a waste of time.
ZDB, calling you an idiot is an insult to idiots.
Ciao.
Score one for, Professor Giaever.
Geneticists and shills of the RS, please note.