global warming
 

as I have suspected for some time.....

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

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 the premier 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 inconvertible."

"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?" 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 human health and 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.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signer of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/...#ixzz1Y1TezU6s

very interesting ...

That's an interesting development, it's a scam to get the taxes in place for the World Government

that's been out there for a few years... not so sure about world gov, but defiantly to line the pocketts of a few like AL Gore. I heard global warming called the 'new communisium'

Al Gore is working for the Banking families and he's being paid a King's Ransom for it.

If we connect the dots and see the Rothschild family promoting the agenda (see video below) and the Rockefeller controlled United Nations pushing for it, we need to ask how likely it is that these globalists have had a change of heart and decided to do something nice for once or if they are once again obsessed with power and control. If we look back to the Club of Rome (UN Thinktank) documents they discuss techniques for encouraging the Nations to Unite (i.e. Global Taxes for a Global Government), they say that an outside enemy is needed who is an enemy to every nation, they proposed the following:-


— in The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 by Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the Club of Rome

Here's David de Rothschild trying to pretend that he now cares about the planet

It can not have anything to do with the suns increased activity because the sun doesn't affect earth in any way as far as I know.

One scientist gets butt hurt and quits a post in a physics society, and you think this proves what exactly? You anti-science types are often unintentionally hilarious.

You do know that science and academia is a hotbed of competition and hurt feelings, right?

And you do realize hurt feelings don't prove or disprove any theory?

Tell you what - I'll watch this issue, and bring you the followup analysis. For all I know, this fellow, of whom I have never heard, has some theory which is in contention, and I will be pleasantly surprized to discover that this is not about being butt hurt, and actually contains some substance.

But the article implies not - he's a physicist squabbling with other physicists, and has no background in climatology, and is just pissed that his fellow physicists think differently than he does.

So he's butt hurt - boo hoo. His being butt hurt does not change the measurements.

The stuff at the end of the article, polls of non-scientust, is just typical fox noise crap right out of the mouths of oil company lobbyists and advertisers, and is meaningless.

Even Homer Simpson knows

No one may question the great god of man-made global warming! This is a sacred concept and all unbelievers must be cast out!



So mote it be!!!!





.

In October 2010, the APS suffered more scientific woes when another one of its prominent physicists resigned. The late Physicist Hal Lewis, who died in May of 2011, excoriated the APS leadership for its strict dogmatic like adherence to man-made global warming beliefs. See: Prominent Physicist Resigns: 'Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen...Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science' & See: Prominent Physicist Resigns From American Physical Society: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life' -- APS President Curtis Callan 'seems to have abandoned most ethical principles...APS has become a corrupt organization' & see: APS responds to resignation of Dr. Hal Lewis -- AND Dr. Lewis Responds Back To APS!

Alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated
100 plus scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming


[ Note: Many of the scientists are current and former UN IPCC reviewers and some have reversed their views on man-made warming and are now skeptical. Also note Nobel Laureate for Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever signed. Giaever endorsed Obama for President in an October 29, 2008 letter. See: Portfolio.com]

Cato.org

“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”

— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.


Yun Akusofu, Ph.D University Of Alaska
Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D Anderson Materials Evaluation
J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
Colin Barton Csiro (retired)
David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Roger Cohen, Ph.D Fellow, American Physical Society
Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D Past-President, Italian Geological Society
Susan Crockford, Ph.D University Of Victoria
Joseph S. D’aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
Upon Tyne (retired)
Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)
Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
James Goodridge, California State Climatologist (retired)
Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute
Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut (emeritus)
Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona (emeritus)
Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy (retired)
Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
Bernd Huettner, Ph.D
Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists
Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University (emeritus)
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm (emeritus)
Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia (emeritus)
David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And Industrial Research
Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And Technology Forum, South Africa
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology
James F. Lea, Ph.D
Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School
Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
James A Marusek, U.S. Navy (retired)
Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University (emeritus)
Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University (emeritus)
David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop’s University (emeritus)
Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation
George H. Taylor,MS, Applied Climate Services
Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata (Argentina)
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D
Dr. Anton Uriarte,Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg (emeritus)
Gerd-Rainer Weber,Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
Miklos Zagoni,Ph.D Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Antonio Zichichi,Ph.D President, World Federation Of Scientists

not believing in global warming is like racism for the new genenration... a real hot button with no basis in fact

Global warming is pretty lol if you ask me.

You're an idiot just shut up. :2 cents:

If this were just a one-off then sure, it might be the case. However, when brought into context with the wider agenda that we see being played out around us; the bankers throwing money at anything and everything to convince us firstly that manmade Climate Change exists and secondly that we will need to pay taxes to help prevent it, when taken into this context we have to assume it's all part of the same scam unless anyone can prove otherwise. Science has been abused for many years, but their are scientists who stand up against it; they have morals and feel compelled into doing the right thing.

Here's another example of someone who resigned due to a different scam, this is Robin Cook's (RIP) resignation speech after Tony Blair forced the UK into war with Iraq. Robin Cook was covertly assassinated 2 years later.

FWI Polar Bears are AQUATIC mammals, like seals :2 cents:

thanks for article, interesting read.

He's allowed to resign. His personal crisis = averted.

I think global warming exists, and it's possible that some of the problem is partially man made. At the same time I think we have become used to our climate and weather patterns for the past 200 years, but the truth is that this is all changing. It's going to get brutal - summers will be hotter, winters colder, and storms will attack us.

I see us living underground in our lifetime.

life is change, adapt or die

'simply incorrect' is an accepted scientific argument these days?

tell you what. You are 'simply incorrect'. i can be a scientist too.

Regardless of whether or not global warming is a threat we still have a problem with pollution and carbon emissions. You should know that if you live in Southern California, you fly into LAX it looks like the whole city is on fire there's so much fucking smog surrounding it. There's only one reason politicians try to discourage seeking out sources of alternative energy, and that's :2 cents:. In the future we'll have no choice but to, let's just hope that oil is as fungible a commodity as they say it is.

So far I ahve not had any luck finding the APS's "official policy statement" on global warming - the language of which this particular norwegian scientist objected to - I am interested in seeing the exact language, because in both science and politics, the exact language is important.

So far the snippets have only (as I recall) said the following - "global warming is incontrovertible' - incontrovertible is strong language, but, the measurements are pretty clear, and if you go by the measurements alone, you do have to use some statement that essentially means "the planet is getting warmer, based on such and such sets of messages".

My first search at the APS turned up this - a page describing some kind of dispute - http://physicsfrontline.aps.org/tag/global-warming/

So far the science news sources have not started to discuss this subject.

One physicist out of 47,000 leaves an organization because of the phrase "global warming is incontrovertible" - well, it will be interesting to see how many others quit.

I thought the physicist's letter was revealing - especially his editorial at the end.

The fact that he felt compelled to add - "besides, even if it is warmer thinsg are still good and lifespans increased as it got warmer" pretty much tells you what his ideological underpinnings happen to be. "Global warming's not so bad, m'kay" - pretty much a callsign of a certain school of media rhetoric against AGW.

His snippeting of language he objects to is not totally clear - the part that claims anthopogenism may or may not be directly connected to the part about "the evidence is incontrovertible". (note - on finding this letter I have to amend my paraphrasing of the statement as 'global warming is incontrovertible' - apparently the correct version is 'the evidence is incontrovertble'.)

http://www.dailytech.com/Nobel+Laure...ticle22744.htm

People who fight over global warming always make me laugh. If it exists, than we still know what we already know, that polluting the environment affects the earth in a negative way. If it doesn't exist we still know what we already know, that polluting the environment affects the earth in a negative way.

Polluting the environment affects the earth, and the people who live here, in a negative way. There is no debate over that.

The reason why there is debate is that the Global Warming Theory is being used as a vehicle for global taxation, global redistribution of wealth, and global government. I don't think anyone has a problem with the idea of polluting less, but it depends how much you want government to take over under the guise of stopping pollution.


.

If Al Qaeda were piggybacking onto Global Warming saying that they need to tax us and set up a world government, would we accept it? What about the NAZI's, would we let them take control of the world to combat Global Warming?

You know the answer to both of those questions. The Green movement was hijacked by Communists/Bankers who are now Piggybacking a ride on the Green movement towards complete control of the planet. Every government needs taxes, but the people would never accept taxes for a communist world government, that's why we're being scammed into it with "Global Warming" taxes. The taxes are "To Protect Us" :disgust

:2 cents:

really? .8 degrees up in the last 150 years? Do you plan on living to be 3000 years old?

The planet has gone through extremely long temperature cycles since it's creation, even in the last 250 million years there have been drastic differences both hot and cold. None of these changes happened over night...

It's as if you believe that the most important point on global warming is that it's a left wing socialist plot to impose regulations and grab money.

Interesting reading. thx

n0w you 're getting it :thumbsup

its getting more and more hotter here on Balkan, i say fucking shit

man the oil companies and koch brothers are doing a good job. :thumbsup
the weather gets more and more extreme and of course there is no way man had anything to do with it. Manufacturing,vehicles are part of nature lol

got a real news source?

here you go http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ws.theobserver

This was during Bush, when that lefty group the pentagon was telling Bush about it.

If you show people the obvious they just call you a conspiracy theorist.

man left-wing statist groups and George Soros are doing a good job.:thumbsup
the weather has been proven to have gone through cycles of extreme changes throughout the history of the planet, long before manufacturing and vehicles and of course it's all man made. lol



.

All the guy is doing is questioning what is a very practical, common sense issue of scientific method and an attempt at turning science into religion, where faith in an idea has become above question and where science is ceasing to let the facts and data reveal the truth and lead the way to discovery.

Whether you agree with or are against, or love Obama or hate Obama or Al Gore or whatever. The guy was resigning due to their abandonment of good scientific practices. His point was simply that language like "the evidence is incontrovertible." as used in the report is bad science.

It's like you guys never learned to think or read sometimes.
:2 cents:

yep that leftist pentagon lol you are too funny. even if its all bullshit dont you want your kid to have clean air and water?

Of course I do, but not by way of global taxes, government and redistribution of wealth, which is what this is being used to push.




.

+1 could not have said it any better.

I know right! Why would you want to impose regulations on oil companies? It's not like they spilled 205 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico or something.

please dont bring up those messy things up like that lol

.8 degrees kelvin - a kelvin degree equals 1.8 degrees farenheit. So, 1.44 degrees F.

As a global average measurement, not a regional measurement, it's pretty significant, and represents a huge amount of heat energy.

And you are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding it's significance. It's not a temperature rise that will cook us like lobsters that is the issue. It's changes in weather patterns and intensification of weather extremes that is what the models predict - and what the measurements still seem to confirm.

Increase of deserts, changes in rainfall and snowfall patterns, stronger storms, hotter hots, colder colds, changes in plant growth patterns, migrations and extinctions, stuff like that.

Suggesting it's going to cook us, and that thats what we are talking about, is silly.

Why did you pick that particular image? You do know it's silly, right?

Oh - and we as individuals will all be dead soon - but humans as a species have been around for a while and will presumably still be around 3000 years from now - so, even if you were being hyperbolic, someone, our descendants, will hopefully be around 3000 years from now.