Readers may recall this story: Nobel laureate resigns from American Physical Society to protest the organization’s stance on global warming.
He’s back.
From the Observations, Scientific American Blog Network
Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting: From the Big Bang to the Big Controversy (aka Climate Change)
Ivar Giaever, who shared the 1973 prize for work on tunneling in superconductors but was to offer a skeptical take on climate change, Molina said that critics aren’t usually the experts. Listening to them, he added, is like going to your dentist when you have a heart problem.
As he took the stage for his turn, Giaever’s immediate remark was, “I am happy I’m allowed to speak for myself.” He derided the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri a peace prize, and called agreement with the evidence of climate change a “religion.”
In contrast to Crutzen and Molina, Giaever found the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case:
“What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”
He disagreed that carbon dioxide was involved and showed several charts that asserted, among other things, that climate had even cooled. “I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker picked and chose when he gave his talk,” he added. He finished with a pronouncement:
“Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely.”
h/t to Marc Morano of Climate Depot
It is good to see a real scientist speak out about CAGW.
Hopefully the public are realising that it is more like astrology and palmistry than real science.
Indeed, there is far more science in the best of astrology than there is in the worst of current climate science. As for palmistry I can’t speak because I haven’t actually examined it remotely closely enough to have a trustworthy opinion.
I refuse to offer opinions on things I have not examined from all sides with a reasonable degree of care.
“I am happy I’m allowed to speak for myself.”
A very appropriate post for Independance Day.
Of course, it is real science. Physical science. But climate change / global warming due to gases is impossible. Gases actually are helping the earth to cool down by convection method of heat transmission. We have disturbed the nature’s cooling system, the rain cycle by urbanization, deforestation, and deserts formation causing the cc/gw.
I’ve always felt Climate Science was Vanity Science, in that everyone wanted it to be true that we are so bad we could destroy the environment with a trace gas and ONLY WE CAN FIX IT IF WE ACT NOW. There’s also the possibility of calling it Ponzi Science as the ‘temperatures’ only ever go up.
Why not read the APS webpage ‘proving the GHE’? http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
In the derivation of Eq. 14: ‘The warmed surface radiates as a blackbody, and also loses heat through rising in air currents or evaporated moisture.’
Process engineers measure coupled convection and radiation every day. Radiative flux can only be at the black body level in a vacuum. In the atmosphere, for emissivity ~0.9, you need to be >~100 deg C for radiative flux top exceed [conduction + natural convection]. Check it out in McAdams Heat transfer.
This fake physics is needed to compensate for the imaginary 238.5 W/m^ DOWN at TOA, the result of failing to understand the real IR physics, another story for another time…….
Basically the IPCC and APS physics is a fudge to fool bozos. No-one who knows heat transfer can ever accept it as anything other than a clever scam.
More chance of cern finding a Higgs-Boson than the “team” finding any AGW.
Of course, it is real science. Physical science. But climate change / global warming due to gases is impossible. Gases actually are helping the earth to cool down by convection method of heat transmission. We have disturbed the nature’s cooling system, the rain cycle by urbanization, deforestation, and deserts formation causing the cc/gw.
ItConfusedPhoton says:
July 4, 2012 at 1:05 am
is good to see a real scientist speak out about CAGW.
Hopefully the public are realising that it is more like astrology and palmistry than real science.
The problem is a very large portion of the public takes astrology and palmistry seriously.
this paragraph seems a bit garbled?
Ivar Gieavaer, who shared the 1973 prize for work on tunneling in superconductors but was to offer a skeptical take on climate change, Molina said that critics aren’t usually the experts. Listening to them, he added, is like going to your dentist when you have a heart problem.
It is certainly good to hear this and adds to the collection of comments from ably qualified sceptics. But unfortunately those in the political class will continue to ignore it, even if it is drawn to their attention. The majority of legislators here in the UK still regularly claim that CAGW is the
biggest threat to mankind. We even have ministers for the environment openly claiming that the floods currently with us, are due to climate change. They are far happier with Kevin Trenberth’s assertion that the current heat wave in the USA is partly due to CAGW.
Good to hear from a Nobel Laureate that what many have suspected, the CAGW religion is a scam and CO2 has zero to do with climate change. Looking outside this morning in the UK, it is wet, windy and about 10C cooler than what is considered normal for July. So the models are wrong as usual.
“Absolutely” – doesn’t leave much room for doubt, that. Doesn’t take a genius to see it, but it’s kind of reassuring when a fully accredited genius agrees with you.
But then, why not, as long as you remember it’s just junk food? A sciency shell with a soft, fact-free centre is very appealing to those with no time to think. That’s the trouble.
From Sherlock Holmes, “A Scandal in Bohemia” (1891), page 3: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
In norwegian, his name is Ivar Giæver. The norwegian ‘æ’ should represented as ‘ae’ in english, thus his surname would become Giaever, not “Gieavaer” (note there is an ‘æ’ front of the ‘v’, but not in front of the ‘r’).
Happy 4th July to all you Americans out there, particularly your military currently in harms way.
How dare your evil free market system dramatically reduce CO2 emissions through the exploitation of shale gas. Didn’t you know, the non-existent problem of CAGW can only be dealt with the European way, ie draconian legislation backed up by authoritarian regimes hoodwinked by green activists. Look how successful us Europeans have been in reducing emissions…….er……hold on ??
Never has ‘Land of the free’ been such an important rallying cry. I hope the US outbreak of common sense regarding shale gas makes its way to Europe.
Regards,
JS
“He derided the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri a peace prize”
What’s that supposed to mean? It’s singular, not plural. The peace prize is awarded by Norwegians in Oslo, very much influenced by the evil witch of the north, Gro Harlem Brundtland.
The science prizes are awarded by Swedes in Stockholm. (Historical reasons)
The name of our prominent Norwegian scientist is spelled Giæver, which with only English letters should be spelled Giaever. It is pronounced y-a-v-e-r with y as in yet, a as in as (!), v as in violent, er like the ending of master.
“Ivar Gieavaer, who shared the 1973 prize for work on tunneling in superconductors but was to offer a skeptical take on climate change, Molina said that critics aren’t usually the experts.”
That doesn’t make sense!
A discipline of science that is not able to define what it is talking about is: pseudoscience.
__climate: is average weather and a change: is a change.
__climate change = is the change of average weather.
So far so stupid. But how did science has defined “WEATHER”?
Should science use a layman’s term? http://www.whatisclimate.com/
Actually, the way it’s played, it should be grouped with some of the role-playing video games. It would be a great game for the Greens – they control the model, they control the data, they devise scheme to end life as we know it. They could even come up with a really nifty name.
Sadly, there’s no motivation. They’d only make a few million, maybe even a billion but not nearly what they’ve raked in to date.
To hear another real scientist and co2 skeptic who has been saying all of this for years and written a book on it called Chill look up Oxford graduate, ecologist and veteran world activist Peter Taylor. Talks on youtube.
For another real scientist that has been saying this for years and wrote a book on it ‘Chill’ look up Oxford graduate, co2 skeptic, ecologist and world activist Peter Taylor. His talks on climate are on youtube.
IT IS A RELIGION AND MOST PEOPLE DON’T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT TO COMMENT.
SO LISTEN TO A SKEPTIC WHO KNOWS WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT!
Climate was and is science.
Climate Change is pseudoscience.
The very day that “change” was added to the scientific term “climate” to become the enviro-political marketing tool “climate change”, the science died.
You don’t hear scientists saying that chemistry needs to be renamed to Chemistry Change or physics becoming Physics Change, to reflect change that happens in those branches of science.
It’s a given, “change” is already accepted in those branches of science as is, like it used to be when we simply had climate.
I suspect that an honest and competent dentist might do me less harm that a crooked and incompetent cardiologist.