Deniers” in their midst – All is not well in Nobel Prize Land

[AFTiger 282]

A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration. As is typical of the supression of the alternate views on climate, we never heard the opinion of the 35 who were in the majority. Today, one of the nobel laureates who was an attendee has spoken out.

From Climate Depot: Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.

“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.”

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize. Giaever is also featured in the new documentary “Climate Hustle”, set for release in Fall 2015.

Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”

But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”

“That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)

“How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.

“Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [Note: Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change. See: Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming]

The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears.

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.

Global Warming ‘a new religion’

Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.

“Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

Concern Over ‘Successful’ UN Climate Treaty

“I am worried very much about the [uN] conference in Paris in November. I really worry about that. Because the [2009 UN] conference was in Copenhagen and that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position,” Giaever said.

“The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.

…

Silencing Debate

Giaever accused Nature Magazine of “wanting to cash in on the [climate] fad.”

“My friends said I should not make fun of Nature because then they won’t publish my papers,” he explained.

“No one mentions how important CO2 is for plant growth. It’s a wonderful thing. Plants are really starving. They don’t talk about how good it is for agriculture that CO2 is increasing,” he added.

Extreme Weather claims

“The other thing that amazes me is that when you talk about climate change it is always going to be the worst. It’s got to be better someplace for heaven’s sake. It can’t always be to the worse,” he said.

“Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said.

“For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm — but for the previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level,” Giaever said.

“If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued.

“You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added.

“Same thing is for tornadoes. We are in a low period on in U.S.”

Full story: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/#ixzz3fE9BU9EN

[AURaptor 1,121]

So, let's play the lottery of reasons for why this guy should be dismissed, ignored and ridiculed. And PERSONALLY attacked.

Racist ?

Bought by big oil ?

Religious nut job ?

Place yer bets !

[aujeff11 6,243]

So, let's play the lottery of reasons for why this guy should be dismissed, ignored and ridiculed. And PERSONALLY attacked.

Racist ?

Bought by big oil ?

Religious nut job ?

Place yer bets !

I don't know much about climate change but I'm sliding this here anyway...he don't know nuttin!

[Weegle777 78]

Clearly they don't know anything about science. How many Nobel Prize winning Physicists are on this forum?

[AUDub 11,131]

He's so hilariously wrong it boggles the mind. Nobel prize winning physicists are just as susceptible to hubris as anyone else.

[AURaptor 1,121]

He's so hilariously wrong it boggles the mind. Nobel prize winning physicists are just as susceptible to hubris as anyone else.

Including self absorbed Community Agitators in Chief.

[homersapien 11,353]

He's so hilariously wrong it boggles the mind. Nobel prize winning physicists are just as susceptible to hubris as anyone else.

Bad Ben!

You should have let them "run" a little longer.

[WarTim 3,456]

Clearly they don't know anything about science. How many Nobel Prize winning Physicists are on this forum? ;D/>

Huge laugh! Thank you Sir !!!

[quietfan 233]

So according to this link, of a group of sixty-five, we have 30 that signed the declaration (expressing one opinion), 1 that has publicly expressed the opposite opinion, and 34 that have expressed no opinion.

Doesn't matter if the question is climate change or Coke vs. Pepsi, the opinions of those 34 cannot be known or presumed unless they speak. One certainly cannot assume they were unanimous in their unspoken opinions, or even that they had opinions. It's fallacious to assume the 35 non-signers represents a "majority opinion" against the declaration, or that any of the other non-signers agrees with the dissenter. In effect, all we have here are 30 votes in favor of the declaration, 1 against, and 34 abstentions that cannot be counted either way. It is illogical, disingenuous, or simply dishonest to present a vote of 30-1 in favor of something as a vote of 35-30 against.

Dr. Giaever could be correct; without more knowledge myself I won't argue that he's wrong. However, it is also terrible logic to assume he is correct simply because he agrees with one's pre-existing opinion. For myself, if 30 scientists came to one conclusion while a lone dissenter disagreed, I'd acknowledge that it's possible the loner is correct, but I'd bet my money (or my future in the case of climate change) on the conclusion of the 30.

(By the way, Dr. Giaever's Noble prize was for "experimental discoveries regarding [quantum] tunnelling phenomena in superconductors", not oceanography, biology, or climatology.)

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Clearly they don't know anything about science. How many Nobel Prize winning Physicists are on this forum?

Well apparently neither does he. I guarantee you walk into a room with Norwegian women and it gets hotter and ice melts.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Of course, his Nobel prize was not in climatology. I forgot that category.

[AUDub 11,131]

(By the way, Dr. Giaever's Noble prize was for "experimental discoveries regarding [quantum] tunnelling phenomena in superconductors", not oceanography, biology, or climatology.)

I can tell you quite a bit about quantum tunneling. Not related at all. He's speaking way out of his depth.

[AUtiger98 24]

(By the way, Dr. Giaever's Noble prize was for "experimental discoveries regarding [quantum] tunnelling phenomena in superconductors", not oceanography, biology, or climatology.)

I can tell you quite a bit about quantum tunneling. Not related at all. He's speaking way out of his depth.

If he's not knowledgeable on the subject then why did they give him the option to sign the declaration? Are their any others who signed it, who were not experts in oceanography, biology, or climatology?

[AUtiger98 24]

A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration. As is typical of the supression of the alternate views on climate, we never heard the opinion of the 35 who were in the majority. Today, one of the nobel laureates who was an attendee has spoken out.

From Climate Depot: Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.

“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.”

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize. Giaever is also featured in the new documentary “Climate Hustle”, set for release in Fall 2015.

Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”

But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”

“That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)

“How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.

“Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [Note: Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change. See: Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming]

The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears.

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.

Global Warming ‘a new religion’

Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.

“Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

Concern Over ‘Successful’ UN Climate Treaty

“I am worried very much about the [uN] conference in Paris in November. I really worry about that. Because the [2009 UN] conference was in Copenhagen and that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position,” Giaever said.

“The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.

…

Silencing Debate

Giaever accused Nature Magazine of “wanting to cash in on the [climate] fad.”

“My friends said I should not make fun of Nature because then they won’t publish my papers,” he explained.

“No one mentions how important CO2 is for plant growth. It’s a wonderful thing. Plants are really starving. They don’t talk about how good it is for agriculture that CO2 is increasing,” he added.

Extreme Weather claims

“The other thing that amazes me is that when you talk about climate change it is always going to be the worst. It’s got to be better someplace for heaven’s sake. It can’t always be to the worse,” he said.

“Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said.

“For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm — but for the previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level,” Giaever said.

“If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued.

“You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added.

“Same thing is for tornadoes. We are in a low period on in U.S.”

Full story: http://www.climatede.../#ixzz3fE9BU9EN

Overall it appears the science is not settled or they all would have signed it.

[homersapien 11,353]

We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example. As he admits in his own words, Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever fits this mould perfectly:

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."

That quote comes from a presentation Giaever gave to the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates in 2012, for some unknown reason on the subject of climate change. As Giaever notes at the beginning of his talk, he has become more famous for his contrarian views on global warming than for his Nobel Prize, which have made him something of a darling to theclimate contrarian movement and climate denial enablers.

In this post we will examine the claims made by Giaever in his talk, and show that his contrarian climate opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, as Giaever admits. Giaever personifies the classic stereotype of the physicist who thinks he understands all scientific fields of study.....(see link for more)

http://www.skeptical...oscientist.html

[quietfan 233]

Of course, his Nobel prize was not in climatology. I forgot that category.

I'm fully aware that there is no Nobel award for climatology, but thanks for the red herring. Is that the only concern you have regarding my earlier comments? There is no Nobel award for oceanography or botany either, although sometimes the prize for medicine or chemistry might be awarded for discoveries closely associated with those subjects. (Now there is a prize for literature, and it might be reasonable to suspect a laureate in literature could possess a great talent for fiction when speaking on climate change!)

My real point, of course, was that his area of expertise is not one that gives him greater authority or knowledge on the subject of climate change. Particularly when he speaks of the effects of CO₂ on plants or the rise of ocean levels, he has gone far afield from the tunneling phenomena in superconductors.

[homersapien 11,353]

Overall it appears the science is not settled or they all would have signed it.

No, it's far more likely that they were hesitant to lend their weight to a subject they didn't know enough about to take an official public position.

Giaever is obviously the exception and had no problems doing exactly that. But it's not really all that surprising to have at least one egotistical example willing to do so. After all, scientists are mere humans.

[homersapien 11,353]

Clearly they don't know anything about science. How many Nobel Prize winning Physicists are on this forum?

I am more interesting in knowing the number of science degrees on the forum.

I've got two. How about you?

[AUDub 11,131]

We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example. As he admits in his own words, Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever fits this mould perfectly:

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."

That quote comes from a presentation Giaever gave to the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates in 2012, for some unknown reason on the subject of climate change. As Giaever notes at the beginning of his talk, he has become more famous for his contrarian views on global warming than for his Nobel Prize, which have made him something of a darling to theclimate contrarian movement and climate denial enablers.

In this post we will examine the claims made by Giaever in his talk, and show that his contrarian climate opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, as Giaever admits. Giaever personifies the classic stereotype of the physicist who thinks he understands all scientific fields of study.....(see link for more)

http://www.skeptical...oscientist.html

Should have posted the xkcd comic.

[quietfan 233]

Overall it appears the science is not settled or they all would have signed it.

Science is never "settled". That is, unlike religion, science is always open to revision or correction based on new evidence. But as I argued earlier, there is no basis for drawing ANY conclusion from their silence about the scientific opinion of those who didn't speak out. One may not even assume they even HAVE an opinion.

[quietfan 233]

Clearly they don't know anything about science. How many Nobel Prize winning Physicists are on this forum?

I am more interesting in knowing the number of science degrees on the forum.

I've got two. How about you?

Since you asked:

I don't have a Nobel prize, but I have two degrees in physics and a third in mathematics...along with 38 years of teaching physics at the university level including courses in astronomy, physical chemistry, and biophysics at times. Teaching those courses requires some knowledge of planetary/climate science, thermodynamics, quantum tunneling, and CO₂ respiration/photosynthesis in plants, but I would never be so presumptuous as to call myself an 'expert' in those fields.

[AUtiger98 24]

Overall it appears the science is not settled or they all would have signed it.

Science is never "settled". That is, unlike religion, science is always open to revision or correction based on new evidence. But as I argued earlier, there is no basis for drawing ANY conclusion about the scientific opinion of those who didn't speak out based on their silence. One may not even assume they even HAVE an opinion.

QF, good stuff. I recently read an article where commenters did not want teachers to present opposing views on global warming because the science was settled. As a student, I would much rather be presented with all the evidence and draw conclusions based on that.

I'll agree with you on "making a conclusion about their scientific opinion". I would be willing to say many of the one's who didn't sign it felt it was outside their field and therefore did not pertain to them.

[AUtiger98 24]

Clearly they don't know anything about science. How many Nobel Prize winning Physicists are on this forum?

I am more interesting in knowing the number of science degrees on the forum.

I've got two. How about you?

If you'll defer to me on constitutional, economic, and technology issues, I'll consider deferring to you on science issue.

I guess this may turn into one of those, "my degree is bigger than your degree" things.

[AUDub 11,131]

Overall it appears the science is not settled or they all would have signed it.

Science is never "settled". That is, unlike religion, science is always open to revision or correction based on new evidence. But as I argued earlier, there is no basis for drawing ANY conclusion about the scientific opinion of those who didn't speak out based on their silence. One may not even assume they even HAVE an opinion.

QF, good stuff. I recently read an article where commenters did not want teachers to present opposing views on global warming because the science was settled. As a student, I would much rather be presented with all the evidence and draw conclusions based on that.

I'll agree with you on "making a conclusion about their scientific opinion". I would be willing to say many of the one's who didn't sign it felt it was outside their field and therefore did not pertain to them.

That can be taken too far. Balance fallacy.

[homersapien 11,353]

Overall it appears the science is not settled or they all would have signed it.

Science is never "settled". That is, unlike religion, science is always open to revision or correction based on new evidence. But as I argued earlier, there is no basis for drawing ANY conclusion about the scientific opinion of those who didn't speak out based on their silence. One may not even assume they even HAVE an opinion.

QF, good stuff. I recently read an article where commenters did not want teachers to present opposing views on global warming because the science was settled. As a student, I would much rather be presented with all the evidence and draw conclusions based on that.

I'll agree with you on "making a conclusion about their scientific opinion". I would be willing to say many of the one's who didn't sign it felt it was outside their field and therefore did not pertain to them.

That can be taken too far. Balance fallacy.

True. That's exactly the argument creationists make.