Nobel prize winner and global warming

[billc]

This Nobel Prize winning physicist resigned over the belief that the proof of global warming is incontrovertable. The article:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/?test=latestnews

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from

physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."
The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.


Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.
"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.
Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of thechanges over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.
"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 humanand happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.
A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.
The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

From the link to the climate site:

Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: 'Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen...Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science'

 

[Jenna]

I think it is difficult to move against such prevailing media attitudes. And but that is not all though. Plans are afoot to develop the capability to cool the climate artificially. I shudder to think what effect this geoengineering might have on us all.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ficial-volcano-for-geoengineering-the-climate

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I shudder to think what effect this geoengineering might have on us all.

Don't you mean shiver to think? Heh, get it? Global cooling, shiver? *ba-dump, tch*

 

[Steve]

Maybe I'm just missing the significance, but it doesn't sound like he's arguing vehemently against the idea of global warming. More that he doesn't like the term "incontrovertible" and believes that there is room for debate. As a scientist, that actually makes sense.

 

[billc]

He is arguing that the scientific society that he belonged to stated that global warming science cannot be challenged. That is what offends him as a scientist.

 

[Steve]

And I agree that he should. But he isn't saying that global warming isn't happening.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And I agree that he should. But he isn't saying that global warming isn't happening.

Not the point. It is becoming clear - and I should think crystal clear - that no dissent is being tolerated by the global-warming believers. To the extent that those who have 'doubt' are 'deniers', and "the debate is over."

This issue has become poisonous and polarized, which kills all reasonable discussion dead.

Personally, I believe that climate change is happening; it always happens. And I'm quite willing to admit that human agency may have played a role in it. I have doubt that the role humans play is a major one, and I have doubt that human agency can set things 'right' again. However, we simply can't have that discussion. One either believes that humans are destroying the world, or one is a 'denier' and evil into the bargain. It's all so banal.

On the brights side, it appears that the global-warming advocates have overplayed their hand. What they're selling isn't being bought to the extent it was.

 

[cdunn]

Not the point. It is becoming clear - and I should think crystal clear - that no dissent is being tolerated by the global-warming believers. To the extent that those who have 'doubt' are 'deniers', and "the debate is over."

This issue has become poisonous and polarized, which kills all reasonable discussion dead.

Personally, I believe that climate change is happening; it always happens. And I'm quite willing to admit that human agency may have played a role in it. I have doubt that the role humans play is a major one, and I have doubt that human agency can set things 'right' again. However, we simply can't have that discussion. One either believes that humans are destroying the world, or one is a 'denier' and evil into the bargain. It's all so banal.

On the brights side, it appears that the global-warming advocates have overplayed their hand. What they're selling isn't being bought to the extent it was.

Organizations like the APS are in a very hard place to be in. All available data points to a theory that a large number of very moneyed interests wish to be untrue. As scientists, the best possible decision is to cry forth the truth, as best we know it. Is there a chance that we are wrong? Well, yes. But, it is like Newton's theories of motion: A good enough approximation to act on, even to trust lives to.

Honest and valid debate is still to be had: How we can best mitigate the impact on humanity as a whole, and our individual nations in specific. How we can secure energy supplies for the coming generations. How we can wean ourselves from oil without destroying our economy. How best to mitigate the economic impact of increasing difficulty in obtaining oil from the ground. How to deal with the mid-range unsustainability of suburban/exurban living. How to deal with disastrous damage to our cities from storms and the rising oceans. How to manage to feed 7 billion people in the face of climate change. They are the decisions we need to make NOW, so your grandchildren can have reasonable lives. (Not mine, I did my part in the fight against global overpopulation.)

These are the debates that organizations like the APS want to encourage. Professional scientific organizations want, in general, to see their work benefit us all as a whole. They want to provide the data and accompanying predictions that permit society to make informed decisions about the future. We need to chart our future. But we can't get to those decisions while half the leaders of the world's largest economy are bawling redfaced and screaming as they pound their fists on the ground about facing the concept of consequences and the future beyond next quarter's dividends.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Organizations like the APS are in a very hard place to be in. All available data points to a theory that a large number of very moneyed interests wish to be untrue. As scientists, the best possible decision is to cry forth the truth, as best we know it. Is there a chance that we are wrong? Well, yes. But, it is like Newton's theories of motion: A good enough approximation to act on, even to trust lives to.

I think to a large extent, this is one of the first times the scientific community has asked humanity to respond as a unified force based on the majority belief that something bad is happening and needs to be mitigated, and they've done a really awful job of selling that. Understandable to some extent; their scientists and not salespeople. But they have often presented their findings as incontrovertible and as command imperatives; we are going to tell you what you are going to do, you planet killers you. That doesn't sell well. It's not that surprising that a lot of people have told the scientists to go jump in a hole and pull the hole in after them.

And when the scientists realized that this approach wasn't working, they set to work silencing dissent in their own ranks; and this is what the scientist referenced in the OP thread was objecting to. Even if the dissenters are wrong; insisting on loyalty oaths and refusing to countenance discussion from within is not a winning sales formulae.

Honest and valid debate is still to be had: How we can best mitigate the impact on humanity as a whole, and our individual nations in specific. How we can secure energy supplies for the coming generations. How we can wean ourselves from oil without destroying our economy. How best to mitigate the economic impact of increasing difficulty in obtaining oil from the ground. How to deal with the mid-range unsustainability of suburban/exurban living. How to deal with disastrous damage to our cities from storms and the rising oceans. How to manage to feed 7 billion people in the face of climate change. They are the decisions we need to make NOW, so your grandchildren can have reasonable lives. (Not mine, I did my part in the fight against global overpopulation.)

As did I. Apres moi, le deluge.

I've argued before that since my wife and I have no children, we have done more to reduce our global footprint on the planet than anyone who has had children, and in a very real, concrete, and measurable way. More than recycling plastic bags or buying a hybrid automobile, we have cut our future impact on the planet dramatically and in a way that frankly ought to have us labeled as heroes. One of the things I find so amusing is that the global-warming blowhards themselves have children; sometimes lots of them. Listen up, breeders; your lifestyle choices affect the planet far more than my SUV; you're the criminals here. So stop reaching into my pocket and have your tubes tied. I'm the good guy here, warmists, as is Christopher.

 

[Monroe]

This is all very us vs them mentality. I've been 'told off' for having children from environmentalists also. I have to wonder, if everyone stopped having children at once, who's going to change diapers when later generations hit the nursing homes? In Canada, we have a birth rate below population replacement levels as it is. And immigration isn't going to make up the difference.

I tend to make green choices that are cheaper or don't cost me more money. Being environmentally friendly, shouldn't be expensive. It only gets expensive when people with more money than sense attempt to be environmentally friendly.
Cloth diapers: environmentally friendly and cheaper than paper within a few months.
We sold the second car and have the family car parked up most of the time. Public transit has improved immensely in this old suburb and we walk when we can. My 2yo does a lot more walking than most adults.
Recycling and organics is curbside pick up in TO. I try to not buy things with a lot of packaging to start with. We have half a bag of garbage, one blue box of recycling and a green bin of organics each week. It still adds up to a lot over a year, but it's better than shipping 4 bags of garbage to Michigan every week.
Turning off lights and unplugging electronics when you're not using them. Should be common sense, but apparently not. It saves us money anyway.
We use cloth bags and plastic bins for grocery shopping, but so does everyone else here. Plastic grocery bags cost money in Ontario.
Reuse when possible.

I'm not going to make a mountain out of a molehill to be 'green'. Most green choices, don't cost more money. I don't expect other people to buy products to prove how green they are. I don't think consumption for the sake of consumption helps matters. I don't expect other people to change their entire lifestyles to save the planet. I think people are confused by elitist consumers espousing environmentalist concerns with trying to be green.

I don't think it's anyone's business what I do with my reproductive organs and I haven't reached into anyone's pockets.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't think it's anyone's business what I do with my reproductive organs and I haven't reached into anyone's pockets.

Actually, I think most environmentalists are a bit hypocritical in this area. They talk about carbon footprints and yell about SUVs and overconsumption. Then they have five kids.

All anyone has to do is look at the math. By not having kids, we've removed not just two more consumers of resources from the planet, but the eternal and ever-expanding results of those offspring. Generation by generation, the children we have today have more and more children, expanding like a pyramid, and consuming ever more resources, from food to wood to nonrenewable resources and so on. The impact is far larger than the SUV I drive today; when I am gone from the planet, my impact will end shortly thereafter. A hundred years from now, there will be no trace of my impact on the planet; those who have children will be sucking up resources at a massive rate.

I'm not going to tell anyone how many children to have - I really don't care. Not having any children, what happens to the planet after I leave means jack to me. But I do like to throw it in the hypocritical environmentalist's faces. I love to see their faces work into a fury as they try to come up with a comeback and realize that they're trapped in my inexorable logic.

 

[Monroe]

Actually, I think most environmentalists are a bit hypocritical in this area. They talk about carbon footprints and yell about SUVs and overconsumption. Then they have five kids.

Maybe that's true for your social circles. That's not my experience at all. The most rabid environmentalists in my experience don't have any children. I've been at the receiving end of their lectures enough to know that they would agree with you about having kids.

 

[SensibleManiac]

"He is arguing that the scientific society that he belonged to stated that global warming science cannot be challenged. That is what offends him as a scientist."


I would add that I don't think it's the "global warming science" that they don't want challenged but their position on global warming, which doesn't have the science to back it up.

The truth is that there is no evidence that man's actions can cause such a huge difference in the climate as they are claiming.
Building a city will effect the climate, but not on a level that is disasterous. Planting trees in front of your house will have an affect on the climate around your house.
The little change that has occured in the climate may be completely natural and out of our hands. The truth is that man has never been that good at affecting nature on a large scale and that nature has always found a way to have it's way.

 

[Steve]

Actually, I think most environmentalists are a bit hypocritical in this area. They talk about carbon footprints and yell about SUVs and overconsumption. Then they have five kids.

All anyone has to do is look at the math. By not having kids, we've removed not just two more consumers of resources from the planet, but the eternal and ever-expanding results of those offspring. Generation by generation, the children we have today have more and more children, expanding like a pyramid, and consuming ever more resources, from food to wood to nonrenewable resources and so on. The impact is far larger than the SUV I drive today; when I am gone from the planet, my impact will end shortly thereafter. A hundred years from now, there will be no trace of my impact on the planet; those who have children will be sucking up resources at a massive rate.

I'm not going to tell anyone how many children to have - I really don't care. Not having any children, what happens to the planet after I leave means jack to me. But I do like to throw it in the hypocritical environmentalist's faces. I love to see their faces work into a fury as they try to come up with a comeback and realize that they're trapped in my inexorable logic.

Yet another reason to wholeheartedly as a society endorse gay marriage!