sda2.jpg

September 27, 2011

The Sound Of Settled Science

Greg Pollowitz;

You don’t have to look far to see that impeccable scientific standards can go hand-in-hand with skepticism about global warming. Ivar Giaever, a 1973 Nobel laureate in physics , resigned this month as a fellow of the American Physical Society (APS) to protest the organization’s official position that evidence of manmade climate change is “incontrovertible’’ and cause for alarm. In an e-mail explaining his resignation , Giaever challenged the view that any scientific assertion is so sacred that it cannot be contested.

“In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves,’’ Giaever wrote, incredulous, “but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?’’

Nor does Giaever share the society’s view that carbon emissions threaten “significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security, and human health.’’ In fact, the very concept of a “global’’ temperature is one he questions. . .

Posted by Kate at September 27, 2011 12:58 AM
Comments

These scientists know that funding depends on the level of panic generated. All funding is cut off if everything is fine. Most of them have bills to pay and mouths to feed. It's in their best interest to drag this scam out as long as they can. Human nature.

Posted by: peterj at September 27, 2011 1:33 AM

Will someone please let PMSH and the Conservatives know that carbon emissions from human activities is not the cause of global warming or cooling. When will they begin to publicly express their doubt about this matter of anthropogenic warming? The conservatives have gone down this road too far already. Enough of the fraud!

Posted by: Carl at September 27, 2011 1:35 AM

Will someone please let PMSH and the Conservatives know that carbon emissions from human activities is not the cause of global warming or cooling.

Go ahead, I'm sure they will value your opinion.
pm@pm.gc.ca

Posted by: North of 60 at September 27, 2011 1:46 AM

A handful or resignations may seem meaningless but it's a start. Eventually enough high profile desertions should have an impact on the current science-is-settled narrative.

Posted by: LC Bennett at September 27, 2011 8:23 AM

Yea but; has anyone asked Lady Gaga what her stance on globull warming is? Now there would be the definitive proof, we all know that Daryl Hannah and Dave Thomas Margot Kidder realize we are doomed, I seem to remember that wizard of an "ACTOR" Ted Danson standing up in "1989". screaming that we had only 10 years to save the planet, because of the hole in the ozone, we're still here Ted. But this is serious folks, we can no longer listen to rubes like ourselves, you know taxpaying honest people, we must listen to the actors and musicians, you know the ones alchohol was first invented for so villagers could put up with travelling minstrel shows. If Harper cannot see through this SCAM, he will be skidded like any other fad follower, honest business will win out and the Eco-baggers will join their departed ancestors, the DODO birds.

Posted by: bartinsky at September 27, 2011 9:07 AM

As always we are on the defensive, rather than on the offensive.

Ideally we should be pointing out that carbon is not to be feared but to be embraced. More CO2 means better harvests, more food for growing populations.

Watch the following video on impact of a 180% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on Cowpea growth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsOL5nWkn1k&feature=related

Posted by: Rizwan at September 27, 2011 9:11 AM

It is good to see that actual scientists have a problem with the current fashion trend in "science", politics and mostly the mass media.

Now, there is not much to be read into this, though the current president of the US lighted into would be republican candidate Perry, Obama takes shots at Perry, GOP debates, "http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_REPUBLICANS_?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-25-22-33-30".

The whole circus is run by the media. The politicians are basically yes men that will agree with most anything the press comes up with so as not to rock the boat. As long as the sailing is in calm waters nobody gets upset.

Now sit and wait how are the media going to transmit the criticism of Ivar Giaever. They will say something to the effect that Ivar Giaever is a has been and other such attacks.

That is unfortunate. It will stay that way until a number of large newspapers will admit that they were in error, a highly unlikely occurence.

Posted by: Lev at September 27, 2011 9:20 AM

// impeccable scientific standards can go hand-in-hand with skepticism about global warming //

In this case, the hands are separated by 50+ years.
Ivar Giaever, [b. 1929], earned his 1/4 share of the 1973 Nobel Prize for creative experimental work culminating in a successful 1960 experiment written up as"Electron Tunneling Between Two Superconductors" (1960).

Physicists are generally smart people, & Giaever is no exception.
But it is not enough to BE a physicist, you have to MAKE an argument -- specifically, a scientific [logical validity & empirical support] analysis.
Most physicists go from some specialized area of university/post-doc study to a career in which they apply their specialized knowledge to specialized problems.
[Giaever's whole career up to his Nobel was at General Electric]. Not many have any training or professional experience in Climate Science.
That's OK -- anyone can argue the matters at hand. But it's not enough to sign something, you have to say something.

And I don't mean this; the sort of thing he is saying now --
// how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year? //

Actually, how that has been accomplished is a fascinating story; a story about which Giaever shows no curiosity whatever.
Rather, it's
// I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings [...] but the humanity is still around //

A lot of old men begin a general rejection of new ideas as part of their final decline. Understandable, but let's not call it science, never mind impeccable.
And FOX, Morano, Watts & the Heartland Institute use his former prominence as an argument from Authority. Not science either.

The man explains his contribution --
How Quantum Tunneling Works - by Ivar Giaever 4:39

Posted by: dizzy at September 27, 2011 11:21 AM

Ivar Giaever

A true scientist , plus a man of honor.
I guess the only absolutes are those pontificated by the loony left. No matter how absurd. Just look at Russia under Stalin. Science became degraded in the interests of social theory. Genetics became a political crime with a one way trip to a Siberian Gulag.
So much for scientific socialism.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at September 27, 2011 11:59 AM

What a drama-queen.

"Let's see ... I've got a Nobel prize in physics ... so instead of writing a paper disputing the physics behind the AGW claims, I think I'll just rage-quit and whine about the word 'incontrovertible'! Yeah, that ought to get me taken seriously ..."

Unfortunately, at over 80 years of age, Mr. Giaever's mental-faculties seem well past their best-before date. Instead of approaching the subject as a competent scientist would, he's pulling the same nonsense as the layman deniers. Which isn't surprising, mind you, but it's certainly something you should make a note of. If you keep track of enough of these cases, sooner or later you're bound to start wondering why your side is only supported by cranks, ignoramuses, and senile or incompetent "scientists" who haven't done any science in a few decades (if ever).

Posted by: Alex at September 27, 2011 12:07 PM

I'm glad that Ivar Giaever has stated plain common
sense. Skepticism is a necessary virtue in physics.
Sorry, Alex, Giaver is still a better man than you.

Posted by: John Lewis at September 27, 2011 12:17 PM

"Sorry, Alex, Giaver is still a better man than you."

Whether that's true or not is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. Only vacuous simpletons evaluate scientific claims based on the character of the individual delivering them.

Posted by: Alex at September 27, 2011 12:32 PM

One wanders how one poster here can stand to be so impressed by his own comments.

Must be a torture to be unrecognized genius.

Posted by: Lev at September 27, 2011 1:28 PM

Alex said

"Whether that's true or not is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. Only vacuous simpletons evaluate scientific claims based on the character of the individual delivering them."

And yet you never discuss the central reason for his quitting the APS....That Climate Change cannot be discussed. Due to rubes like yourself who claim any "skeptic" is anti-science and try to shut down discussion.

Credentialism is positive when it works in AGW favor including our favorite railroad engineer, but is negative when against AGW.

Consensus means nothing in science. The fact that more economists or dendridologists or whatever believe mankind is THE major cause of climate change does not make it so.

The GC model have clearly been proven wrong, yet we are told they predict the end of the world and we better change our lives so that the elites don't have to change theirs.

Posted by: dkjones at September 27, 2011 1:46 PM

Ivar Giaever ETC

Affiliations
Heartland Institute — Listed as a "Global warming Expert."
Cato Institute — Endorser of Cato Institute's global warming advertisement.

Publications
According to Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute, the University of Oslo and Google Scholar, Dr. Giaever has not published any work in the area of climate science.

Posted by: dizzy at September 27, 2011 1:46 PM

// the central reason for his quitting the APS....That Climate Change cannot be discussed. Due to rubes like yourself who claim any "skeptic" is anti-science and try to shut down discussion. //
He has made up his mind. And you can't discuss anything directly with an organization of 50 000 members. But he has had a chance to discuss his views with fellow Nobelists & young physicists. He just didn't say much --
Nobelists talk energy

His comment about nothing much having been done since Kyoto & the contention by another of the panelists that a carbon tax is necessary, does relate to an anecdote from the recent book by Daniel Yergin --
// There are also many wonderfully revealing observations and anecdotes, such as John Prescott, then Britain’s deputy prime minister and chief European negotiator at the 1997 Kyoto climate conference, being beaten down by his US counterpart to accept cap-and-trade as the sole global instrument for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. //

Posted by: dizzy at September 27, 2011 2:10 PM

Aha, the trolls are out, and as usual, the best they can offer is ad hominems.

Posted by: gordinkneehill at September 27, 2011 2:15 PM

@Lev:
"Must be a torture to be unrecognized genius."

Oh, I'm sure it would be. Luckily, I don't spend all my time surrounded by brainwashed far-right ideologues; my choice of friends and acquaintances - as well as the group of coworkers I've been fortunate enough to end up with - spans a much broader, more mentally-stable spectrum of the populace. As such, I get all the recognition I need, and often more than I'm comfortable with.

Thanks for your concern, though!


@dkjones:
"And yet you never discuss the central reason for his quitting the APS....That Climate Change cannot be discussed."

You're right - I saw no reason to discuss such an absurd lie. If you're living in a liberal western democracy and publicly screaming about not being allowed to discuss one of the most-discussed topics of this decade ... well, you're a self-defeating moron, and don't deserve a serious response.

Posted by: Alex at September 27, 2011 2:25 PM

Time for Lance to do his culling again.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at September 27, 2011 2:50 PM

People, don't let Trollex hijack yet another thread, please.

Posted by: Colin in BC at September 27, 2011 3:17 PM

Yeah, imagine that, a guy making completely on-topic comments about the original article! The nerve!

Like the rest of the twits, you clearly have no idea what the word "troll" or "hijack" mean. If you had more than a dozen functional brain-cells left, you'd realize that your own comment is a trollish attempt to hijack the thread.

Posted by: Alex at September 27, 2011 4:24 PM

Alex,
"Whether that's true or not is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. Only vacuous simpletons evaluate scientific claims based on the character of the individual delivering them."

What are your qualifications that enable you do differentiate between 2 well-educated physicists? Hansen and Giaever, for instance.

Why should we listen to pro-AGW...Hansen? How do you know he knows what he is talking about and that Giaever should be ignored?

Neither is a climatologist.


Posted by: h2o273kk9 at September 27, 2011 6:25 PM

"Why should we listen to pro-AGW...Hansen?"

In a pinch. But the brain-dead left put their dough behind suzuki and the like, you know. Real Climate Scientologists, er, scientists.

Or algore. There's another unimpeachable scientific touchstone for trollex and his single-helixed pals.

mhb23re

Posted by: mhb at September 27, 2011 6:46 PM

"What are your qualifications that enable you do differentiate between 2 well-educated physicists? Hansen and Giaever, for instance."

I don't. This is exactly why you - and those like you - don't get it. Science isn't done by picking a guy who's smart, or picking the side which has more credentials. It's clear from your question that you only understand popularity-games and politics; the scientific approach is a completely foreign concept to you.

Look, let me make this clear: I don't care if you're the smartest man on the Earth, or the dumbest kid ever born; if you can present a well supported paper which clearly and unambiguously overturns a major premise of AGW theory, and if your results can be consistently replicated by others, I will gladly go to bat for you. Even if you've got a 75 IQ, speak like Forest Gump, and look like Kathy Shadle, I'll take your side over any Nobel-prize-winning-movie-star who hangs on to the theory which you've discredited. What matters is what the data shows - not what some guy with a Nobel prize yelled out as he stormed out of the room.

Until you can understand why that is the scientific approach, you don't have a hope in hell of ever understanding why there's a scientific consensus on the subject of AGW, let alone of being a part of any serious debate on the subject.

Posted by: Alex at September 27, 2011 8:19 PM

The same goes for the theory of evolution. I fyou study evolutionary biology or evolutionary genetics under REAL scientists in a REAL University, they will tell you that evolution is: "a good working hypothesis" -- nothing more, nothing less. I learned that in an secular-atheist University. Evolution is NOT settled to the degree that any real scientist refers to it as a law.

Posted by: ricardo at September 27, 2011 8:24 PM

// What are your qualifications that enable you do differentiate between 2 well-educated physicists? Hansen and Giaever, for instance.
Why should we listen to pro-AGW...Hansen? How do you know he knows what he is talking about and that Giaever should be ignored?
Neither is a climatologist. //

Not a "climatologist". Either you are being cute, or you are quoting someone being, as they say, economical with the truth. Hansen is a climate scientist.
Q. What is climate science, and how does it differ from meteorology and climatology?

As for what qualitfications you need to estimate relative expertise, how about the ability to read?

Ivar Giaever -- Selected publications
Giaever, Ivar (1960). "Energy Gap in Superconductors Measured by Electron Tunneling". Physical Review Letters 5 (4): 147.
Giaever, Ivar (1960). "Electron Tunneling Between Two Superconductors". Physical Review Letters 5 (10): 464.
Giaever, Ivar (1974). "Electron tunneling and superconductivity". Reviews of Modern Physics 46 (2): 245. .
More recent work would be in Biophysics , but still studying conductivity [in cells]
&
According to Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute, the University of Oslo and Google Scholar, Dr. Giaever has not published any work in the area of climate science.

VERSUS

Publications by James E. Hansen
Submitted
Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann, 2011: Earth's energy imbalance and implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys., submitted.
In Press
Hansen, J.E., and Mki. Sato, 2011: Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change. In Climate Change at the Eve of the Second Decade of the Century: Inferences from Paleoclimate and Regional Aspects: Proceedings of the Milutin Milankovitch 130th Anniversary Symposium. A. Berger, F. Mesinger, and D. Šijači, Eds. Springer, in press.
Publications
2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986, 1985, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978, 1977, 1976, 1975, 1974, 1973, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1968, 1967, 1966.

Click on Hansen's link, then on any of the years, to verify the relevance of his work to Earth climate.

Posted by: dizzy at September 27, 2011 8:25 PM

"evolution is: 'a good working hypothesis' ... I learned that in an secular-atheist University. Evolution is NOT settled to the degree that any real scientist refers to it as a law."

Well, that's good. It's just sad that they didn't teach you the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law.

Or did you just sleep through that class?

Posted by: Alex at September 27, 2011 8:28 PM

Alex
"I don't. This is exactly why you - and those like you - don't get it. Science isn't done by picking a guy who's smart, or picking the side which has more credentials. It's clear from your question that you only understand popularity-games and politics; the scientific approach is a completely foreign concept to you."

Nice trap you fell into. Where did I picked any side based on qualifications? I merely asked you what your qualifications to do so came from.

While we're at it, what are your qualifications that allow you to read one blog post and jump to the conclusion that the scientific approach is foreign to me?


"What matters is what the data shows - not what some guy with a Nobel prize yelled out as he stormed out of the room."

So I ask again, what are your qualifications that will allow you assess what the "data shows"?

"if your results can be consistently replicated by others, I will gladly go to bat for you.

But what are your qualifications to assess that the results have been properly replicated by others and how would you know they were properly qualified to properly replicate my results?

I'm waiting.


Posted by: h2o273kk9 at September 27, 2011 8:28 PM

“In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves,’’ Giaever wrote, incredulous, “but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?’’

At some point higher education just starts to make you dumb or maybe it's the drugs. There is no multiverse. People used to know that.

Posted by: rj63 at September 27, 2011 8:30 PM

"While we're at it, what are your qualifications that allow you to read one blog post and jump to the conclusion that the scientific approach is foreign to me?"

The fact that you keep asking for my qualifications tells me all I need to know about your "familiarity" with the scientific method.

I'm serious. Go take some science classes at the local college/university. Or at least go talk to some people in the real Skeptical community. You need to figure this stuff out if you want to have a serious discussion.

Posted by: Alex at September 27, 2011 8:33 PM

Alex

"Or at least go talk to some people in the real Skeptical community.

I'll ask again. Please enlighten me on how you identify a real skeptic. One who is qualified at the scientific method and thereby truly able to critique the current scientifice data and theories.

While we're at it...what are the proper qualifications I should look for in both the pro and anti-AGW scientists. I would like to learn who they are and I don't want to be led astray by ideologues. Please give me the proper guidance.

While we're at it...show me why I shouldn't discount you as another ideologue yourself.


Posted by: h2o273kk9 at September 27, 2011 8:41 PM

Naw. I'm about 90% sure you're being intentionally obtuse, and I have no desire to play your silly games. On the off chance you're actually serious and looking to learn, you can e-mail me at duci-Black_Mamba-mus@gmail.com (minus the dumbass) and I'll answer your questions. Otherwise, go troll someone else.

Posted by: Alex at September 27, 2011 8:48 PM

Alex

"Go take some science classes at the local college/university."

Which colleges/universities should I trust?
Which courses would qualify me to properly assess AGW?

How do you know all this?

I don't want to rely on the media and consensus because you would obviously disapprove of such an uninformed rationale.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 at September 27, 2011 8:50 PM

Alex
"On the off chance you're actually serious and looking to learn, you can e-mail me at duci-Black_Mamba-mus@gmail.com (minus the dumbass) and I'll answer your questions. "

But how will I know that the answers you provide are from someone properly trained in the science of AGW so that I can trust your guidance?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 at September 27, 2011 8:52 PM

Alex

"Well, that's good. It's just sad that they didn't teach you the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law."

Please teach me. Which is AGW and why?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 at September 27, 2011 9:06 PM

the man quits APS because they "will not discuss" contrare POVs, butt the likes of Asslex thinks that papers should be written, papers that those in charge at APS will denounce without consideration. So let me ask you Asslex, are you alrite in the head???


as to Hansen, the boy has recieved 1.2 million for his support of AGW, and this is against the law


Global climate....can it be measured?...maybe, but to date it has not been done, as the methodology used is below the standard required

Posted by: GYM at September 27, 2011 9:41 PM

But Gym...

I await Alex's response to your arguments. I trust only his expertise in determining whether you are right and wrong. And, of course, this will depend on his ability to properly understand the arguments of the scientists involved...which will in turn depend on his understanding of the data and the experiments that lead to the conclusions of those scientists.

I'd hate to think that he was relying only on dogma in his responses to arguments such as yours. That would truly let me down.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 at September 27, 2011 9:58 PM

:p

In response to "GYM's" .... "comment" ... allow me to quote myself from earlier:

"If you keep track of enough of these cases, sooner or later you're bound to start wondering why your side is only supported by cranks, ignoramuses, and senile or incompetent "scientists" who haven't done any science in a few decades (if ever)."


"alrite", Mr. "against the law"? :D

Posted by: Alex at September 27, 2011 10:16 PM

Alex

"If you keep track of enough of these cases, sooner or later you're bound to start wondering why your side is only supported by cranks, ignoramuses, and senile or incompetent "scientists" who haven't done any science in a few decades (if ever)."

So how do you feel about Dr. Suzuki, Nobel Prize winner Gore, and Dr. Hansen?

Please show me their relevant papers.

I do believe that they make the headlines on a regular basis which, it would seem, convinces many of the non-scientits among us, including influential journalists, that AGW is already proven.

Surely, these people should only be listening to reputable scientists that are only currently trained and knowledgable in climate science.

Please, please, please, Alex....who are these people and how do you know they are the proper custodians of the truth?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 at September 27, 2011 10:24 PM

Alex,

"you're bound to start wondering why your side is only supported by cranks, ignoramuses"

Your silence hurts. I'm starting to believe that Suzuki, Gore, and Hansen are just cranks and ignoramuses only supported by the AGW side.

HELP! I need names of real AGW scientist.

AND I want to know how you know they are real AGW scientists!!!

I'm so lonely without your guidance.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 at September 27, 2011 10:51 PM

Good arguements, but who missed this one ??

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Posted by: peterj at September 27, 2011 11:46 PM

@dizzy

Publish or perish, a game of self proliferative blathering aimed at the attainment of ivy league status. (Cut and paste color in the paradigm stuff) It's all very impressive on the surface until you become familiar with the semiotics, then... not so much.

Got Newt?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEOXI88lSw8&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL45E52C6A496280C1

Posted by: ∞ ≠ ø at September 28, 2011 1:41 AM

∞ ≠ ø

One of the key things that Climate-Gate reveal is that publishing in Journals is not a test of credibility. Many published authors/scientists especially Mann et al, Briffa et al have been thoroughly discredited and empirical evidence showed that any papers contrary to the CAGW mantra were systematically prevented from publishing by the pro-CAGW gate-keepers.

Yeah that excerpt of Newt's remarks nails it.

Posted by: sasquatch at September 28, 2011 11:46 AM

I'm starting to think "global warming deniers" is too specific to really describe you as a group. "Reality deniers" would be a better fit, though we already have a word for that: "insane".

Posted by: Alex at September 28, 2011 4:51 PM

Why are you people feeding Trollex?

Posted by: The Phantom at September 28, 2011 5:23 PM

Alex,
'"Reality deniers" would be a better fit'

But that would me that you, unqualified as you are to properly assess the science and the people expressing their opinions on the science, are basing your characterizations of others on merely your emotional attachment to a position opposite these people. After all, you are unable to know whether these alleged "reality deniers" are in fact just deniers or perhaps have more knowledge than you.

Didn't you state:

"Only vacuous simpletons evaluate scientific claims based on the character of the individual delivering them."

As you have no scientific understanding of the issue yourself, this is all you have to cling to thus making you truly incapable of determining which among us is simply a denier and which are skeptical of the science because we understand its weaknesses.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 at September 28, 2011 7:29 PM

Ooh, alex - please don't trip over that hockey stick.

Or maybe just ignore it because

IT. ISN'T REAL.

mhb23re

Posted by: mhb at September 29, 2011 8:38 PM
Site
Meter