Nobel Prize Winner, Ivar Giaever, Resigns from the American Physical Society Over Global Warming Stance

Fri, 2011-09-16 15:08Steve Horn
Steve Horn's picture

Nobel Prize Winner, Ivar Giaever, Resigns from the American Physical Society Over Global Warming Stance

Picture: © Peter Badge/ Foundation Lindau Nobelprizewinners Meetings at Lake Con

On September 14, renowned Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever announced his resignation as a Fellow at the American Physical Society (APS). The reason? His grievance over their stance on global warming, which they believe, rightfully so, is conclusively real and man-made.

Their stance on global warming reads,

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.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

This is a fairly straightforward statement on global warming, and one that is in line with the overwhelming scientific consensus. One would think Giaever, a trained and renowned scientist himself, would agree with the statement himself.

One would be wrong.

In an article appearing in Fox News he said he had a beef with the APS's use of the term “incontrovertible,” in particular. 

He stated, “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?” 

Yet even Exxon, a major funder of climate change denial campaigns, now admits that climate change is the real deal, according to a great investigative report recently produced by University of California-Berkeley scholar Christopher Jones.

When a climate change denier leaves a prestigious organization like APS, there is really one appropriate response – a few hearty choruses of the Steam's classic song, “Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye,” of course.

Hey hey, goodbye, Ivar Giaever! 

Comments

Nice picture selection. Modern heretic to be publicly shamed I suppose.

And this, of course, from Desmogblog, who just the other day elaborately decreed Galileo was a “liberal”.  In their words,

“He was a fearless explorer of new knowledge, as well as a puckish challenger of assumed wisdom.”

(http://www.desmogblog.com/memo-rick-perry-galileo-was-liberal)

I guess this is an example of what “liberals” do, nowadays, though.

“And this, of course, from Desmogblog, who just the other day elaborately decreed Galileo was a “liberal”.  In their words,”

Sounds fair to me.

 

It’s not enough to be liberal… though it seems to help. You also need to be right.

I guess he isn’t intelligent enough to decipher the global warming science.

So we can expect Ivar Giaever to start appearing on the denier circuit any time soon I imagine. Where he will be flown from one denier conference to another to echo industry science.

Seems to be a good gig for most of the other denier scientists. Don’t have to conduct any research, simply denounce others research & be flown around the world to do so.

 

If it’s good enough for Einstein… the man is a physicist

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=einstein+tongue

If you guys did a little research into his resignation, you would find that the one thing about the AGW statement that he disagreed with was this;

“The evidence is incontrovertible…”

To a real scientist, the evidence is NEVER incontrovertible.

And shame of Desmog for for picking that particular picture of this very well respected scientist of long standing. In fact, shame on Desmog for the whole tone of the article. This is not the same as the lame Wagner resignation and if you folks don’t see the difference then you’ve proved to me that you are only here as a (paid) propaganda outlet that has nothing to do with “News”.

Btw, I see Chris Mooney is working for Think Progress now. That’s about as fringe as you can get these days.

Ah, a tone troll who ends his comment with a jibe at Chris Mooney and Think Progress.

Way to go making a fool of yourself.

Yeah, I’m weak and backsliding Marco. Then again I’m just a troll, right?

But think for a minute; what is the purpose of this blog? Among other thinfs, it is to re-affirm the mantra of CAGW to the converted and to maybe pick up a few stray skeptics along the way, right? Do you really think they achieved any of that second item with an article like this?

It might surprise you to know that many skeptics are well read compared to some of their believer counterparts. Most had probably read an unbiased account of this article (and a few biased ones, no doubt) before coming here.

This blog exposes the bullshit produce by you deniers and your corporate puppetmasters. This article adds to that mission. The fact that you think it has failed to convert any deniers does not make it any less useful.

Giaever is just another old fool amongst many who cannot accept the unpleasant reality that all credible science shows is *incontrovertible* fact beyond any reasonable doubt.

P.S. If you spent less time writing empty rhetoric and more time reading *science*, it’s possible you could escape your delusion and denial.

“Giaever is just another old fool amongst many who cannot accept the unpleasant reality that all credible science shows is *incontrovertible* fact beyond any reasonable doubt.”

The only thing that makes the AGW hypothesis “incontrovertible” is the fact that no means of falsification exists.  Unless of course you can tell us what experiment has been performed which conclusively proves humans have caused global warming.

Personally, I think US postal rates are responsible:

http://joannenova.com.au//globalwarming/graphs/us_post_causes_global_warming_lrg.jpg

> …no means of falsification exists. 

Sure, if you’re completely ignorant and / or in denial of the science.

> …what experiment has been performed which conclusively proves humans have caused global warming.

That statement demonstrates that you need to take some remedial science lessons.

98% of the planet’s climate scientists and 100% of the planet’s national science academies confirm ACC is as good as inconvtrovertible fact. You deniers are just modern day flat earthers, a bunch of idiots who can’t accept an uncomfortable truth.

You didn’t answer the question.

IPCC AR4. Where is it wrong? Peer-reviewed cites for any claims made. Go.

Of course, you can’t produce any coherent response - just like every other denier.

You can’t answer the question, can you?

What experiment can be, or has been, performed which conclusively proves, or disproves,  the hypothesis that human beings have caused global warming?

As expected. You’re a moronic crank on the internet who doesn’t understand the science and certainly has no rebuttal to it.

Thanks for playing.

I’ll leave you with the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

“The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.”

Evidence that climate change exists doesn’t establish the cause. They are reaching and you are desperate.
That is evidence of some ulterior motive.

Everybody accepts evidence of climate change. No one is in doubt of it. Proving it over and over does not establish cause.

Someone on the internet says the American Association for the Advancement of Science is “reaching”.

I’ll give your opinion all the consideration it is due.

Are the American Physical Society “reaching” as well?

* “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.”

How about every national science academy of every industrialised country on the planet? All “reaching” too?

You deniers are pathetic.

You’ve presented evidence that scientific association or at least the leadership want power. They desperately want to steer policy now - in order to save us from ourselves. It’s always that.

I have no choice but to accept your evidence that political organizations want to tell me what to do.

“You’ve presented evidence that scientific association or at least the leadership want power.”

And this is happening simultaneously with every major scientific institution around the world?

“They desperately want to steer policy now - in order to save us from ourselves. It’s always that.”

What do you do if you are a scientist that knows it’s true & the evidence is overwhelming & you can see the writing on the wall. But like out of some bad movie, there are political naysayers & their followers, as well as industry that says otherwise? Do you just give up? By shutting up, it doesnt make the problem go away.

Entertain us with your Alex Jones theories. Why do they want to steer policy?

“I have no choice but to accept your evidence that political organizations want to tell me what to do”

Strange how it’s progressives world wide that largely accept the science & want to do something about it. Yet when it comes to conservatives. It’s only the countries that have vast fossil fuel deposits where you find the conservatives are against it. Denier$ & liar$ for hire.




 

> ..conservatives. … Denier$ & liar$ for hire.

Yup. ‘Debate’ them long enough and it almost always boils down to them being scared that someone is going to take some of their money.

There’s also a component of what makes conservatives tick:

* Several studies have shown that conservative ideology correlates with classic authoritarian beliefs, greater intolerance and less empathy. http://journals.chapman.edu/ojs/index.php/e-research/article/view/91/315

Less empathy makes it much easier to take the attitude, “fuck you, I’ve got mine” - and that’s something I see from them all too often.

“Debate’ them long enough and it almost always boils down to them being scared. that someone is going to take some of their money.”

From what I read in this study, it might just be fear in general that makes conservatives the way they are.

Fear of losing money, fear of other races, other cultures, of change, of new ideas, of terrorism, of AGW. They then put in place the politicians that echo their fears & tell them they will head off their fears on their behalf.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/28/conservatives-fear-center-brain/

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other “primitive” emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate – the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism…….The “liberal gene” has also been linked to a desire to try new things, and other “personality traits related to political liberalism.”

Got a fear of ethnics? Get someone in that will promise to make them go away. Got a fear of “terrorists”? Get someone in to get them before they get us. Got a fear of global warming actually being true? Get someone in to allay your fears & make it all go away & tell you it’s not true. Someone is proposing radical change or new things? Make it go away, I just want things to stay the same, why do things have to change or move so fast?

Btw, Blue Rock, can you repost your link? I cannot open it. Appears dead.



 

> …it might just be fear in general that makes conservatives the way they are.

I’d agree with that - with a pinch of shortsighted self-interest thrown in.

Thanks for the rawstory link. Added to notes.

> …can you repost your link?

The link worked for me yesterday, but it’s dead again now. Looks like the entire server is a bit flaky… I guess they’ll get it fixed some time soon. I can’t find an alternative source.

P.S. Kinda related and amusing: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/ive-never-actually-seen-the-resemblance/

“You deniers are pathetic.”

But I’m not denying anything.

I merely asked a very simple and straightforward question, the nature of which, after several attempts at evasion, has apparently sent you stomping off in an anger-filled huff, hurling insults and accusations as you flee.

Why is that?

You still haven’t answered the question.

It’s really quite simple.

“You still haven’t answered the question.”

Because it’s a loaded question. You propose a question that can’t be answered in isolation to the wider picture, so that you can claim the whole AGW theory is nullified because your narrow set of requirements is not met.

Show me an experiment that conclusively proves what causes cancer. If you cannot prove it to me with a simple experiment, it proves that nothing causes cancer.

If you believe there is not enough evidence:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-evidence

Maybe you should take the evidence you believe you have up with say Nature, or Science or one of the climate science Journals. I look forward to your peer reviewed paper.

Also, you cleverly worded your question as “caused”, not causing”. Very deceitful, but hey, we are used to that around here.







 

Well the experiment of increasing emissions will continue on anyway. China and India are growing their economies as fast as they can on coal. Western efforts to reduce emissions will be meaningless. It will just make us poorer.

Oh well. The human carbon experiment continues. The smart guys in the white coats will not have a say in the matter.

“Well the experiment of increasing emissions will continue on anyway. China and India are growing their economies as fast as they can on coal”

That’s why it’s important western countries make the first move in regards to abatements. We have benefited from it for the last century or so & at Copenhagen we said to China & India, look, you guys are growing pretty quick & are causing most of the emissions per country. Then they (China & India) turned around & said, get stuffed, you have caused most of the damage & want us to pay to fix it? Get real, you have a higher per capita CO2 use than us & you export all your emissions to our countries to supply your goods. This reeks of imperialism.

Meanwhile, China sees the new cleantech boom & is positioning itself as the new world leader in this field. Like I said before. There is no instant cleantech switch. It will take decades to transform to a cleantech economy & probably many more for much of the transport sector. The energy production side is not so hard to overcome. It’s the transport sector. Particularly logistics (air, shipping,trucks) where there is no quick transition, as well as things like plastic.

“The smart guys in the white coats will not have a say in the matter.”

You seem confused. Earlier you said:

“They desperately want to steer policy now “





 

They want to steer western policy. I’m predicting they ultimately fail and where they have momentary success it will be of no global consequence.

“They want to steer western policy. I’m predicting they ultimately fail and where they have momentary success it will be of no global consequence.”

I gather you mean the USA, because you seem to have lost out in much of Europe.

Why do you think they want to steer western policy? Just what are those sneaky scientists up to in this world wide collaboration?



 

I think what theyre up to is group think. And their individual motivations are mixed and their solutions are imperfect.

But let’s assume they have the science nailed down. There is a problem with the treatment plan.

The medicine they prescribe is a severe reduction in emissions. The side affect would be a severe decline in western lifestyle if the medicine was actually taken. As the side affects become obvious the medicine will be rejected.

Ultimately the public won’t swallow the pill.

Just my prediction

“Because it’s a loaded question.”

It’s not a trick question, and it’s quite simple and direct, actually.  Strangely, you seem to be acting very defensive about a question which wasn’t even originally directed at you, yet you have gone out of your way to engage me.

“You propose a question that can’t be answered in isolation to the wider picture, so that you can claim the whole AGW theory is nullified because your narrow set of requirements is not met.”

They are not “my” narrow set of requirements – falsifiability is the basic requirements of any valid logical proposition, or, for that matter, any valid scientific theory.  If falsifiability is missing, then it does not meet the minimum standard of being a valid logical proposition or a valid scientific theory.

If rules of logic irritate you so much, then take it up with Aristotle, not me.

“Show me an experiment that conclusively proves what causes cancer. If you cannot prove it to me with a simple experiment, it proves that nothing causes cancer.”

No, it simply demonstrates that you don’t know what causes cancer – not that it has no cause.  You and your fellow-travellers, on the other hand, are claiming to know what causes global warming.

“Maybe you should take the evidence you believe you have up with say Nature, or Science or one of the climate science Journals. I look forward to your peer reviewed paper.”

I don’t need any evidence, since I’m not the one making any claims.  I’m merely questioning your claims.  The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

Which brings me back to my original question …

“Also, you cleverly worded your question as “caused”, not causing”. Very deceitful, but hey, we are used to that around here.”

My goodness!  Of what will you accuse me next?  If you prefer different wording, then let’s have it your way:

What experiment can be, or has been, performed which conclusively proves, or disproves,  the hypothesis that human beings have caused, or are causing, global warming?

Happy?

“It’s not a trick question, and it’s quite simple and direct, actually.”

No it’s not simple & direct at all. It is indeed a common denier trick & one that leads to a circular argument, where  ultimately you claim that the science is not settled or there is no proof or no evidence because you have not been sufficiently convinced.

Of course there would never be a time where you could be convinced until your denier messiahs changed their position or your political party changed it’s position. So the exercise is pointless.

E.g. I am an atheist & you are an othordox christian, or a christian lobbyist or clergy. There is nothing, short of God appearing , or a Cardinal or Pope appearing that would change the orthodox viewpoint. Nothing.

There is no single experiment that could prove this & you know it, as you would simply tack on additional parameters, variables & requirements.

For example. I can say that this experiment that shows CO2 blocks heat is an experiment. Therefore, adding more CO2 will trap more heat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

You will simply say, but what about the clouds, what about water vapour, what about the sun, what about the affects of clouds, you didnt think about that did you? Likewise, scientists never thought about that.

The only true experiment that could be conducted is if we had an exact clone of our planet & a time machine to see the different results.

“No, it simply demonstrates that you don’t know what causes cancer – not that it has no cause.”

That’s exactly right & to this day, doctors & scientists cannot prove in an experiment what causes cancer. They talk in “liklihoods”. It’s likely that specific carcinogens will cause cancer, that gamma radiation will likely cause cancer, that smoking will likely cause cancer, that asbestos will likely cause cancer. It doesn’t make people say well 2% of scientists or doctors disagree, so I’m going with that decision! The science is not settled!

“You and your fellow-travellers, on the other hand, are claiming to know what causes global warming.”

No, just the 98% of world scientists & 100% of major scientific institutions are. We are just saying they know their work. They are experts, we are not & we don’t make it a habit of questioning every other field of science either do we?

“The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.”

Correct. And the hypothesis was first put forth in 1896 & we have had over 100 years of data & analysis, so that it has now passed the burden of proof stage. A new accepted paradigm/consensus has been reached. There is now no major scientific institution that disagrees with the consensus. So the burden of proof is now on those that disagree with the consensus.

That doesn’t mean that the paradigm or consensus can’t or wont change. It just means that your going to need more than opinion to change it.

“My goodness!  Of what will you accuse me next?  If you prefer different wording, then let’s have it your way:”

See above. You are practicing deceit.












 

“The only true experiment that could be conducted is if we had an exact clone of our planet & a time machine to see the different results.”

Now was that so hard?  After all your hand-waving, equivocations, rationalizations, and red herrings, you’ve finally answered the question.  Congratulations.  I knew you could do it.

Yet, for some reason, you continue on as if you don’t even believe your own answer to the question.

“It is indeed a common denier trick & one that leads to a circular argument, where  ultimately you claim that the science is not settled or there is no proof or no evidence because you have not been sufficiently convinced.”

Asking a simple question is a “denier trick”?  Um, okay …

I’m not the one making the circular arguments – you are.  I’m merely questioning your circular arguments.  My being convinced one way or the other isn’t relevant.  But from your own answer to my question, it seems that you yourself are not completely convinced of your own claims.

“They are experts, we are not & we don’t make it a habit of questioning every other field of science either do we?”

So you’d rather we accept the claim of AGW on blind faith?  Well, if it’s good enough for you …  Should we have questioned the “scientific experts” who maintained lobotomies were an effective method of treating mental illness?  Should we have questioned the “scientific experts” who asserted that Jews are an inferior race and should be exterminated?  No, let’s never question the “experts”.

“Correct. And the hypothesis was first put forth in 1896 & we have had over 100 years of data & analysis, so that it has now passed the burden of proof stage.”

So a claim becomes exempt from requiring proof if it has been around long enough, even though it has never, in all that time, actually been, you know, proven?

By your reasoning then, since people have believed in Santa Claus since long before 1896, it has “now passed the burden of proof stage”.  Santa Claus exists – the science is settled!  And don’t question the Santa experts.

“There is now no major scientific institution that disagrees with the consensus.”

Science doesn’t operate by “consensus”.  It never has, and it never will.  You don’t get to take a vote on whether the effects of gravity are real, or whether water boils at 100 degrees C at sea-level.  You are trying to commit the fallacy of argument from authority.

“So the burden of proof is now on those that disagree with the consensus.”

Nope.  The burden of proof will always rest on the one making the claim.  Once again, you are trying to shift the burden of proof.

It’s funny to read your tortured and illogical arguments after having rather concisely answered my question.  Even though you have now conceded that it is just as impossible to prove or disprove the AGW hypothesis, as it is to prove or disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny, you still persist in soldiering on – knowing full well (as you have now admitted) that there is no way to falsify the very belief in which you have so deeply emotionally invested yourself.

Good luck with that.

 

“I’m not the one making the circular arguments – you are.”

I hadn’t posted yet. You asked the question several times before I mentioned anything. I correctly predicted you would use a circular argument before you even came out with it & I was right. I pointed out that there would be no experiment that would satisfy you. The worlds brightest scientists & every major scientific body on the planet don’t require the naive requirements that you do for your proof.

Science has used models for a long time before computers came around & when computers did arrive on the scene. It advanced & expedited knowledge & our understanding. We can take empirical evidence, plus use modeling to predict results & those results to date have been surprisingly accurate.

“So you’d rather we accept the claim of AGW on blind faith?”

There was never a need for the public to disbelieve our worlds scientific community until legislation that would affect profits came into the picture. Admit it. You never even considered AGW until someone mentioned a carbon tax. Then suddenly, you know somehow, that the science is all wrong. We have never considered science was wrong or all of the planets scientific bodies were wrong except for a few other instances in time, like the effects of tobacco, or the hole in the ozone or going back much further, dismissing  beliefs of the church. The attack or disbelief in science only occurred when there was a threat to profit. Fortunately for those industries, there is never a shortage of people that are gullible enough to believe them.

“Should we have questioned the “scientific experts” who asserted that Jews are an inferior race and should be exterminated?”

Well they were right wing nut jobs. There were millions that disagreed with them, except for those that voted for them.

“So a claim becomes exempt from requiring proof if it has been around long enough, even though it has never, in all that time, actually been, you know, proven?”

Not just been around long enough. But evidence built upon over the decades to a point where no one has evidence otherwise (anecdotal or opinion doesn’t count.) & every major scientific body accepts the evidence.  Whether or not they have proven it to joe public or paid industry scientists is inconsequential.

“Should we have questioned the “scientific experts” who maintained lobotomies were an effective method of treating mental illness?”

If we were to put on hold every facet of science because there could be something just around the corner that changes the paradigm, then we would be still stuck in the middle ages.

“By your reasoning then, since people have believed in Santa Claus since long before 1896, it has “now passed the burden of proof stage”.  Santa Claus exists – the science is settled!  And don’t question the Santa experts.”

There is a difference between belief & belief in the scientific evidence.

“Science doesn’t operate by “consensus”.  It never has, and it never will. You don’t get to take a vote on whether the effects of gravity are real, or whether water boils at 100 degrees C at sea-level.”

I can see why you are struggling. You are right, science doesn’t operate by consensus. Scientists operate using the scientific method & when the majority agrees with the method, a consensus is reached. Consensus is just a general agreement.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

“Nope.  The burden of proof will always rest on the one making the claim.”

It has past the burden of proof stage. They don’t need to prove it to you. They just need to prove it to the majority of practicing experts in the relevant field. We are not talking about a majority as in a political majority, like the 51% that is required to win an election & is considered a landslide. We are talking about a 95-98% majority!! Please provide the name of a single major scientific institute on the planet that disagrees with the consensus.

“Once again, you are trying to shift the burden of proof.”

Your argument is an argument from ignorance.



















 

“Then again I’m just a troll, right?”

Well, for starters , you use terms that only deniers use like CAGW. A term designed to try & exagerate the position of those that accept the theory of AGW. It’s a strawman tool adopted by deniers to encourage other deniers & the general public to use & then when there is no rolling catastrophe, you argue, see! They said it was going to be a catastrophe & all it was, is a little bit of rising ocean or drought. There was no scene out of 2012, or sudden impact, they LIED! Exaggerated!

“But think for a minute; what is the purpose of this blog?”

I think BlueRock describes it nicely.

“This blog exposes the bullshit produce by you deniers and your corporate puppetmasters. This article adds to that mission. The fact that you think it has failed to convert any deniers does not make it any less useful.”

I might add, that I don’t come here to this blog to re-affirm my acceptance of the AGW science. There are pro science blogs that I go to for that, that specialize in talking entirely about the science. My interest in coming here is the corporate psychology used on the general public by corporations, how they manipulate people, how willingly people allow themselves to be manipulated & how political bias can be used as a tool on the rusted on voters to accept whatever they say without question.

If you truly believe that you are well read, you would acknowledge that there was a very successful campaign used by the tobacco industry that lasted some 40 years, which had an armada of scientists & doctors ,that said their product was ok & no one had anything to worry about. Fred Singer & Richard Lindzen to this day still work for them & still say there is no link to cancer from smoking. You would have to admit, the con job worked & this was largely just Phillip Morris. Today, the corporate spin & con job is being waged by the fossil fuel industry. There are many of them compared to the tobacco industry & they are vast in size compared to the tobacco industry. You think they are just going to sit back & do nothing about the attack on their profits? You don’t think they have learned a trick or two from the tobacco industry?

The blog header on this site clearly states:

” Clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science”

It couldn’t be much clearer than that.




  

This is not really a news story.  Ivar Giaever had already gone on the record in opposition to the APS statement by being one of the 206 signers of the Fred Singer petition to the Council of APS asking them to reconsider the statement.

http://physicsfrontline.aps.org/2009/11/10/aps-council-overwhelmingly-rejects-proposal-to-replace-societys-current-climate-change-statement/

John Mashey provided this analysis of the petition signers indicating that the opposition to the APS position was based in a small number of individuals, and that the petition in opposition originated at Heartland Institute.

See Richard Littlemore’s article here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/another-silly-climate-petition-exposed

Ivar Giaevar is already affiliated with denier organization Heartland Institute:

http://heartland.org/ivar-giaever


 

Thanks for mentioning … people might especially read pp.12-16 on the demographics of the petition signers.  I summarize as:

a) The signers represented less than 0.5% of the APS membership, despite a strong push by Bob Austin, Will Happer, etc.  There was clear evidence of social network recruiting  in action, rather than grassroots.  Of course, some people might not have signed who would have agreed with it, but there are plenty of reasons to think that wasn’t a high number.

The Princeton Physics department has 60+ people.  Austin&Happer were only able to sign up one more from that list, Sal Torquato. 

b) I would guess that a much higher percentage of the N. American population would sign that, given the usual polls.  Of course, it makes sense that any PHD physicist could read a decent climate book in a day (say David Archer’s Global Warming - Understanding the Forecast, spend a few days checking a few things at IPCC, NASA, etc … and understand enough to be convinced.)  After all it takes *strong* ideological, financial or other motivations for PhD physicists to ignore conservation of energy or quantum mechanics.

c) So, physicists should be less likely than most to fall into climate science.  But suppose one does, what do we know?  See pp.12-16:

- much more likely to be retired/emeritus/older than the APS population.  Of the 119 for whom I had good estimates of birth years, only 16 were born from 1950 onward.

See http://i46.tinypic.com/204j13.jpg, TEC5 “going emeritus”

- very likely to be male (but not significant: there weren’t enough older female physicists).

- By looking at political donations, 94% of the money went to Republican/Liberatarian, 6% to Democrats. Of money in 2004 or 2008 presidential campaigns, 100% went to Bush or McCain.

SO: the tiny subset of physicists who reject AGW are disproportionally old guys with conservative political views.  The implication does not work the other way: in fact, most older male physicists do not reject AGW  and did not sign this petition.

Finally, most Nobel physicists stay sensible and productive in later life; the 2 I know personally certainly do.  But a few don’t and embarrass themselves with stupid pontificating on topics they haven’t done any work in and haven’t studied up on.

For more, see:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/diamond_planets_and_climate_sc.php#comment-5220888

and then 114, 117, 118.

 

So, rather than discuss the actual facts of the matter, you resort to what is basically an ad hominem attack against those who disagree with your viewpoint.  This suggests to me that you really have no coherent argument that you can make regarding the issue, and so you take the lazy way out.

Perhaps if you dig hard enough, you might get lucky and discover some of your ideological enemies are Jews or Freemasons, and you’ll be able to use that against them as well?

Love your work John. I have your “Strange scholarship in the Wegman report” on the bookshelf in my ipad. So many gems in there. ;)



 

Ray Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate”
 http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/PrinciplesPlanetaryClimate/index.html

“Ray Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate”
 http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/PrinciplesPlanetaryClimate/index.html”

He mentions university knowledge & is trying to be elitist! Get im!!


 

The former Noble Prize winner seems to have lost his way and objectivity. Sad. Perhaps he needs the money- and will sell his soul and future generations down the road.

Troll? Perhaps. Ethical- NO.

Again, see:

http://i46.tinypic.com/204j13.jpg

or its use by group/individual categories:

http://i46.tinypic.com/5zibfc.jpg

I cannot know, but I would guess the combination of reasons is more in the ideology and psychology categories than in the financial ones.

 

[x]

At a June 19 speaking event at London's Chatham House, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen claimed the Russian government is covertly working to discredit hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in the west from afar.

“I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations,...

read more