You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming
2011-09-15
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 incontrovertible."

"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."
Posted by:Beavis

#8  Only 0.8 C change in over a century? The way that people talk, and the damage associated with global warming, you would think that it was 10 degrees or more.

Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2011-09-15 22:37  

#7  Fave, not face. I'm going to have to get one of the trailing daughters to turn off the auto spell. :-(
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-09-15 20:06  

#6  My face resignation over AGW is still this, though. From the same organization as Mr. Giaever, oddly enough.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-09-15 20:04  

#5  When was the last time you saw the environmentalists demanding nuclear power plants be built to provide clean plentiful energy.

Nope, never happened. Won't happen. Because they aren't really concerned about solutions as much as destroying the existing energy system.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2011-09-15 14:48  

#4  Just last week or so there was a story in the NYT about a scientific issue that had previously been "settled" only to have a new discovery rock that certainty. It wasn't AGW, though, so it could be published. (It had to do with cell behavior, IIRC).
Posted by: Spot   2011-09-15 14:34  

#3  That would be the case if the people who pushed green regulations ever disproportionately enforced it against oil importers instead of doing so against oil producers in North America.

When was the last time you saw Darryl Hannah or James Hansen protesting at a terminal for oil tankers from the Mideast? Or, for that matter, at a port where plastic stuff is unloaded from China?

the environmental movement has been promising that every round of their regulations will reduce energy imports for the last twenty to twenty five years. Every single round of them.

And during that time period, oil imports have gone from 35% of consumption to 65%, and increasing every year.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2011-09-15 13:37  

#2  Also, that the policy is to outsource energy sources and energy equipment production to places where environmental pollution controls are lax.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2011-09-15 12:57  

#1  I'm not worried so much of carbon buildup in the atmosphere as I am our national wealth erode do the the trade imbalance. We give hundreds of millions each month to our current enemies. That money could stay in America while we perfect green technology.
Posted by: Penguin   2011-09-15 12:34  

00:00