Reposted from Populartechnology.net by invitation
Seven Eminent Physicists; Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg all skeptical of “man-made” global warming (AGW) alarm.
Freeman Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College (1936-1941), B.A. Mathematics, Cambridge University (1945), Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University (1946–1947), Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University, (1947–1948), Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949), Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951), Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953), Fellow, Royal Society (1952), Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994), Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964), Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965), Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966), Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968), Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968), Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969), J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize (1970), Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975), Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975), Harvey Prize (1977), Wolf Prize in Physics (1981), Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present), Member, London Mathematical Society (2000), Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003), President, Space Studies Institute (2003-Present)
Notable: Unification of Quantum Electrodynamics Theory.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.” – Freeman Dyson
Ivar Giaever, M.E., Norwegian Institute of Technology (1952), Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1964), Engineer, Advanced Engineering Program, General Electric Company (1954–1956), Applied Mathematician, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1956–1958), Researcher, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1958–1988), Guggenheim Fellowship, Biophysics, Cambridge University (1969-1970), Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1965), Nobel Prize in Physics (1973), Member, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1974), Member, National Academy of Science (1974), Member, National Academy of Engineering (1975), Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego (1975), Visiting Professor, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (1975), Professor of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1988-2005), Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Applied BioPhysics (1991-Present), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (2005-Present)
Notable: Nobel Prize in Physics.
“I’m a skeptic. …Global Warming it’s become a new religion. You’re not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that’s important is if the scientists are correct; that’s the important part.” – Ivar Giaever
Robert Laughlin, A.B. Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley (1972), Ph.D. Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1979), Fellow, IBM (1976-1978), Postdoctoral Member, Technical Staff, Bell Laboratories (1979–1981), Research Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1982–2004), Associate Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1985–1989), E.O. Lawrence Award for Physics (1985), Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1986), Eastman Kodak Lecturer, University of Rochester (1989), Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1989–1993), Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1990), Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1992–Present), Professor of Applied Physics, Stanford University (1993-2007), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1994), Nobel Prize in Physics (1998), Board Member, Science Foundation Ireland (2002-2003), President, Asia-Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics (2004-2006), President, Korean Advanced Institute for Science and Technology (2004–2006)
Notable: Nobel Prize in Physics.
“The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control.” – Robert Laughlin
Edward Teller, B.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Karlsruhe (1928), Ph.D. Physics, University of Leipzig (1930), Research Associate, University of Leipzig (1929–1931), Research Associate, University of Göttingen (1931–1933), Rockefeller Fellow, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Copenhagen (1933–1934), Lecturer, London City College (1934), Professor of Physics, George Washington University (1935-1941), Researcher, Manhattan Project, Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory (1942-1943), Group Leader, Manhattan Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1943-1946), Professor of Physics, University of Chicago (1946-1952), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1948), Assistant Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1949-1952), Developer, Hydrogen Bomb (1951), Founder, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (1952), Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1953-1975), Associate Director, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (1954–1958), Harrison Medal (1955), Albert Einstein Award (1958), Director, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (1958-1960), Professor, Hoover Institution on War Revolution and Peace, Stanford University (1960–1975), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Atomic Energy Commission (1962), Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution (1975-2003), Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1975–2003), National Medal of Science (1982), Presidential Medal of Freedom (2003), (Died: September 9, 2003)
Notable: Manhattan Project Member, Developer of the Hydrogen Bomb and Founder of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“Society’s emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming–the jury is still out.” – Edward Teller
Frederick Seitz, A.B. Mathematics, Stanford University (1932), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1934), Proctor Fellow, Princeton University (1934–1935), Instructor in Physics, University of Rochester (1935–1936), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1936–1937), Research Physicist, General Electric Company (1937–1939), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1939–1941), Associate Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1941-1942), Professor of Physics, Carnegie Institute of Technology (1942-1949), Research Professor of Physics, University of Illinois (1949-1965), Chairman, American Institute of Physics (1954-1960), President Emeritus, American Physical Society (1961), President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences (1962-1969), Graduate College Dean, University of Illinois (1964-1965), President Emeritus, Rockefeller University (1968-1978), Franklin Medal (1965), American Institute of Physics Compton Medal (1970), National Medal of Science (1973), (Died: March 2, 2008)
Notable: Pioneer in the field of solid-state physics and President Emeritus of the National Academy of Sciences.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.” – Frederick Seitz
Robert Jastrow, A.B. Physics, Columbia University (1944), A.M. Physics, Columbia University (1945), Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University (1948), Adjunct Professor of Geophysics, Columbia University (1944–1982), Postdoctoral Fellow, Leiden University, Netherlands (1948-1949), Scholar, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1949-1950, 1953), Assistant Professor of Physics, Yale (1953-1954), Chief, NASA Theoretical Division (1958-61), Founding Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (1961-1981), NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1968), Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth College (1981-1992), Chairman, Mount Wilson Institute (1992–2003), (Died: February 8, 2008)
Notable: Founding Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and hosted more than 100 CBS-TV network programs on space science.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“The scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.” – Robert Jastrow
William Nierenberg, B.S. Physics, City College of New York (1939), M.A. Physics, Columbia University (1942), Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University (1947), Researcher, Manhattan Project, Columbia SAM Laboratories (1942-1945), Instructor in Physics, Columbia University (1946–1948), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Michigan (1948–1950), Associate Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1950-1953), Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1954–1965), Assistant Secretary General for Scientific Affairs, NATO (1960-1962), Director Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (1965-1986), Member, White House Task Force on Oceanography (1969-1970), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1971), Chairman, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (1971-1975), Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (1971–1978), Member, National Science Board (1972–1978, 1982–1988), Chairman, Advisory Council, NASA (1978-1982), Member, Space Panel, Naval Studies Board, National Research Council (1978–1984), Member, Council of the National Academy of Sciences (1979-1982), Chairman, Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, National Academy of Sciences (1980–1983), NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal (1982), (Died: September 10, 2000)
Notable: Manhattan Project Member and Director Emeritus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“The available data on climate change, however, do not support these predictions, nor do they support the idea that human activity has caused, or will cause, a dangerous increase in global temperatures. …These facts indicate that theoretical estimates of the greenhouse problem have greatly exaggerated its seriousness.” – William Nierenberg
Peer-Reviewed Climate Publications:
Can we control the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
(Energy, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp. 287-291, September 1977)
– Freeman J. Dyson
Evidence for long-term brightness changes of solar-type stars
(Nature, Volume 348, Number 6301, pp. 520-523, December 1990)
– Robert Jastrow
Evidence on the climate impact of solar variations
(Energy, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp. 1285-1295, December 1993)
– Robert Jastrow
Global warming: What does the science tell us?
(Energy, Volume 16, Issues 11-12, pp. 1331-1345, November-December 1991)
– Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz
Keeping cool on global warming
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 5, Issue 6, pp. 32-41, July 1992)
– Frederick Seitz, William Nierenberg, Robert Jastrow
Rebuttals:
A Rebuttal to “Jason and the Secret Climate Change War” (PDF) (Nicolas Nierenberg, Walter R. Tschinkel, Victoria J. Tschinkel)
Clouding the Truth: A Critique of Merchants of Doubt (PDF) (The Marshall Institute)
Early Climate Change Consensus at the National Academy: The Origins and Making of Changing Climate (PDF) (Nicolas Nierenberg, Walter R. Tschinkel, Victoria J. Tschinkel)
Vanity Scare (TCS Daily)
References:
2008 – 58th Meeting of Nobel Laureates (PDF) (University of Hartford)
Do people cause global warming? (The Heartland Institute)
Heretical thoughts about science and society (Edge: The Third Culture)
Letter from Frederick Seitz (Petition Project)
The Planet Needs a Sunscreen (The Wall Street Journal)
What the Earth Knows (The American Scholar)
Sponsored IT training links:
If interested in JN0-400 certification then take advantage of 1z0-053 dumps and 642-746 mock test written by certified expert to help you pass real test on time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Freeman Dyson is the coolest egghead evah.
Wonderful!
Hey, what about me?
============
A few adults have come down stairs to see what the kids are up to.
There will doubtless be hundreds of AGW-sceptical scientists out there – the AGW science is just too weak and blatantly corrupted for it to be otherwise. Some of these sceptics will be keeping quiet in return for a quiet life and steady career. Some will be disingenuously pushing the alarm button in return for ever more grants. Some will be in a state of denial over their inner doubts about AGW in order to sleep at night whilst riding the alarmist train. And many, like those men featured above, will speak out in the face of threats and ostracism simply because they have a conscience and because it is the right thing to do.
Given the age of these august gentlemen, some of whom unfortunately sullied their reputations by becoming the paid shills of tobacco companies, one cannot help thinking of the remark of Max Planck:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
The question is not about how many eminent old physicists are contrarians, but how many young ones?
But,but they aren’t Climate Scientists! like AlGor-oh wait …
Never Miiind. (Channelling Emily Litella)…
An excellent piece recently published by Robert Laughlin:
http://www.theamericanscholar.org/what-the-earth-knows/
I don’t believe that the number of scientist that believe in a particular theory is germane.
When Albert Einstein was
informed of the publication of a book entitled 100 Authors
Against Einstein, he is said to have remarked, “If I were wrong,
then one would have been enough (Hawking, 1988); however,
that one opposing scientist would have needed proof in the form
of testable results.”
That brings us to the big lack in the climate alarmists argument, the lack of testable results. Since we don’t have a spare earth to experiment on we must use models which will only be testable if they are correct in 100 years.
So far they haven’t predicted the lack of “statistically significant” warming since 1995 very well. Statistically significant means that getting excited over a .1 ° C rise in 10 years makes no sense if many years rise or lower by .4 ° C from previous ones.
Dyson’s video is well worth watching on poptech.
I have to comment here if only to be in such exalted company.
The words and qualifications are the thing, just wish the message these Gentlemen are sending will be heard in the MSM…….oh yeah………..but “the science is settled!”
Any sane politicians listening?
Is there such a thing as a sane politician?
Not in Britain seemingly.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/07/march-of-progress.html
Sigh!
You don’t have to be a “climate scientist” to understand the basic tenets of science. I think things are summarized best by “Sometimes you know what you don’t know and sometimes you don’t know what you don’t know”.
Good collection, but what organization awards the “Noble Prize”?
Surely, all are (or were) in the employ of Big Oil, besides being just old (or deceased) white men. Sarc/off
“The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control.” – Robert Laughlin.
Well said! Maybe the ignorant Media and climatology modellers should be taught a bit of geology to show that Redwood like forests existed 45 million years ago within the Arctic Circle about 1000 miles away from present day living trees. But don’t expect these so called climatologists to admit it when their grant money might be in danger of disappearing. As for the media, bad news always outsells good news.
So the Science is only “settled” when you ignore the views of unsettling Scientists and any studies that indicate alternative theories, is that it?
On such “incontrovertible” and “robust” foundations we have erected castles-in-the-sky, resource-sapping cathedrals and self-congratulationary monuments to hubristic
fantasies and greed that demand no less than a full suspension of disbelief.
I have little problem with the politicos who wash down their trough foraging with this swill. They meet my expectations, in general, and I occasionally experience pleasurable twinges when the odd individual sticks a brave neck out.
I can’t even find it in me to blame the silent majority of Scientists who, er keep silent, can’t afford to rock the good ship, SS Government Funding.
I have nothing other than bilious contempt for those who’ve hijacked the educational establishment to brainwash a generation of children with a brand of nihilism and propoganda
that shamelessly pushes political propoganda before dispassionate and objective learning.
A “bit” at odds with the official policy of the American Physical Society. I guess the membership’s attempt to retract the 2007 statement ended with the update in April 2010.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm should have a link here, and now it does. 🙂
The long list of Scientists, cv’s and their skeptical quotes about climate should be gathered and an article written about it. This should give public opinion a great balance about the established idea of how scientists “major” support the AGW idea….
It took the physicists to fully question Cold Fusion as well. Perhaps they have a little more humility and are more demanding of themselves and others in the face of nonlinear dynamics and complexity.
They are true scientists in every respect, and as such can’t be trusted.
How possibly could they compete in physics and chemistry with a railway engineer?
AGW proponents say: certainly not, no contest; the Indian railway’s (the envy of the western world) expert wins hands down.
Re: Toby
Wow. You’ve convinced me with your infallible logic. From now on I will never believe anything said by any scientist who has received funding from any industry. I will only believe scientists who, throughout their career, have only had funding from special interest groups and government (who as we all know are completely neutral). I wont bother investigating any of the science behind their claims, I’ll just dismiss any claims they make.
I sometimes wonder if anyone has done the 8th-grade calculation regarding feedback. The way a History graduate would look at basic demographics. Wait — I am a history graduate (M.A., Columbia University, 1985). So I’ll take an 8th-grade look. I won’t even use algebra (though one could).
Let us consider the gross factors.
— We have a 40% increase in CO2.
I will stipulate this. We add c. 7 Bil. Metric Tons Carbon to the atmosphere annually. Somewhat over half this is absorbed by land and sea sinks. The rest accumulates in the atmospheric sink (which contains c. 750 BMTC). The amount absorbed is variable and the persistence of CO2 (long or short) are factors, but the basic fact, confirmed by independent measurements so far show we are — at this point — increasing atmospheric CO2 at 0.4% per year.
— There has been some warming this century. How much is at issue.
Adjusted data shows a global increase of roughly 0.7C. We do not know what the raw data shows. However, it is a fact that if one takes a straight average of USHCN stations for the 20th century, one finds that raw data shows a trend of +0.14C per station average and adjusted data is +0.59. If you grid the data, you get roughly +0.25C raw vs. +0.72 adjusted. So we can infer, until such a time that the raw data is actually available, that global raw vs. global adjusted will tell us roughly the same story.
— A doubling of CO2 without any feedback (positive or negative) is roughly a +1.2C forcing.
Again, this is not without dispute. But as it is accepted by Drs. Spencer, Christy, and Lindzen, we will stipulate that it is enough to be going along with at this time.
— There are factors other than CO2 that produce warming.
We’ll consider land use (as endorsed by Dr. Pielke) and “black carbon”, which creates the “dirty snow” phenomenon in the Arctic (reducing albedo by c. 3% and having a “salt-in-the-driveway” effect).
— There is a natural warming trend going back to 1650 roughly equivalent to 20th century warming.
We have to rely on proxy data, and there is controversy concerning the historical record. However, we can reasonably infer that at least part of 20th century warming is natural (especially when one examines the period from 1920 – 1940).
So, we have as our working figures pro tem:
— A 40% increase in CO2.
— A temperature increase of roughly +0.25C (raw), and +0.72 (adjusted).
— +1.2C warming (without feedback) per doubling of CO2.
— Warming from other (non-CO2) anthropogenic factors.
— Some natural warming.
Well, as we look at it with our 8th-grader minds, we can see that a 40% increase in CO2 will produce around a +0.6C forcing. That is well in excess of raw temperature increase and nearly equal to adjusted temperature increase. And this is on top of some natural warming and non-CO2 anthropogenic warming.
The IPCC mainstream estimate indicates that positive feed back will almost triple the raw warming effects of CO2. So a CO2 forcing of 0.6C should produce an increase in temperatures of c. +1.5C. (Or at least some magnification even if the effect is not proportional.) This has not happened.
Therefore, one may reasonably conclude, for now, that observational data is not consistent with any positive CO2 feedback so far and that it is possible, even likely (depending on the degree of natural and non-CO2 manmade warming) that there has been at least some negative feedback.
The view of the eminent scientists is heart warming, but
“Water is the driver of nature” ; Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519).
Only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth’s water is in the atmosphere, with a the residence time of about 9 to 10 days. The replacement comes mainly from the ocean, which have an average depth of 3800 meters and a temperature of 4° Celsius. The climate change issue would be served decisively if the ocean would be much more in focus.
John of Cloverdale WA says:
July 25, 2010 at 8:03 am
“… Redwood like forests existed 45 million years ago within the Arctic Circle …”
The Dye 3 ice core from southern Greenland has basal forest remains with an estimated age of ~450,000 years (a little closer to present day).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694912/
after hearing the first of the reith Lectures on ABC Radio National in Aus theis arvo,
I,d love to get this on their screens, however R Williams is so ardent a warmie I doubt it would get a passing derisory mention:-(