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 36 signed the declaration. As is typical of the suppression of the alternate views on climate, we never heard the opinion of the 35 who were in the [nearly equal] 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.”
File this under: Another piece of news that will never see the light of day on NBC, CBS, ABC, etc., etc.
Well, Dr. Ivar Giaever, like me you are now a denier and a heretic.
Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears.
‘Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group’s belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: “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? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) 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.”
Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008.’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2011/09/14/exclusive-nobel-prizewinning-physicist-who-endorsed-obama-dissents-resigns-from-american-physical-society-over-groups-promotion-of-manmade-global-warming/
And covered here at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/14/nobel-laureate-resigns-from-american-physical-society-to-protest-the-organizations-stance-on-global-warming/
thanks (from Vermont) for the link – I’m still catching up on my back-reading here
Observation: A left wing Nobel prize winner who supported the Democrat candidate (Obama) can see that the science of AGW is unsound. And says so.
That’s because AGW is not a political issue.
It’s an issue of corruption in science – venality and insecurity.
The internet has transformed many information handling industries. Why expect Academia to be different?
But it has been so far.
And the tensions caused by holding back the tide of history is warping the practice of the scientific method.
It’s a corruption of science, but it was done for political reasons.
And the fact still remains that the vast majority of those, both scientific and otherwise, who are pushing this nonsense are from the left side of the political spectrum.
Mark, M Courtney is from the left side of the political spectrum. I know you didn’t know.
Yes, The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley, I am from the left side of the political spectrum. And sceptical of dangerous AGW. So I am keen to highlight that a left wing Nobel Prize Winner is also sceptical of dangerous AGW.
Either science will self-correct and we can kick this dodgy science out while still disagreeing politically.
Or politics – sophism – will rule and truth will lose (neither of the political spectrum wants that). But that takes physical science being equated with political opinion.
Or we recognise that we should all work to help science correct itself. Recognising that the self-correction mechanism is imperfect.
Ghost, I was well aware of Dr. Courtney’s political proclivities. I am also aware of his many attempts to hide from the attempts of so many on his side of the line to push the AGW meme, by going on and on about ;how there is nothing political about science.
MarkW:
My son disagrees with me on many things and does not need my support, but in this case I write to make a general point by opposing an untrue attack of him.
You say of him
I suspect I am more aware of my son’s activities than you but I don’t know of his making any “attempts to hide” from anything.
And it is a truth that science is NOT political.
However, some people from all parts of the political spectrum attempt to corrupt science for political purposes. In extremis this becomes Lysenkoism whereby science is subservient to political policies. And it is a mild form of Lysenkoism to claim it is acceptable to ‘push’ or (as e.g. you do) to ‘oppose’ a scientific idea for reasons of politics.
Richard
MarkW, for clarity – I am not a Doctor.
But that doesn’t mean I’m so scientifically illiterate as to think the physical world alters to match one’s political opinion.
There is a difference between ‘not having the qualification’ and ‘believing in magic’.
I think the corruption of science is a consequence of political agendas interfering in science, specifically the green agenda, so it is very much political. However, scientific truth will eventually transcend politics and we are starting to see this happen. Eventually, the MSM might notice, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
When the scientists start saying things that politicians do not like to hear, they will simply stop asking scientists for their opinion.
Does anyone ask scientists to decide when an incipient person becomes a human being?
And the satellites will not show a record in 2015 either.
After 6 months on RSS, the average is 0.304, and this would rank in 6th place if it stayed this way. However it will probably go up to third place before the end of the year. But a new record is virtually ruled out since the anomalies for the rest of the year would then need to average 0.796. This was only beaten once and that was in April 1998 when it was 0.857. It cannot be ruled out that the June anomaly of 0.391 may rise to 0.796 by December, but there is no way that 2015 could end up in first or even in second place on RSS.
UAH6.0 is in a very similar situation.
Joseph Stalin said that it does not matter who votes; what matters is who counts the votes.
The data sets will say whatever their masters deem that they should say. After all, this is not science!
It appears that there is another vote against the consensus of “settled science.
““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.”
Well, seriously, he is a visionary leader. The problem is: his vision is not the same one he articulated when Dr. Ivar Giaever et al signed that letter.
Those folks who supported/voted for an “honest politician” were clearly misled. That he was re-elected simply shows the power of a supporting main stream media.
and watch out for the plastic lady as well as get Bernie started on saving us
Visionary? If you count the view through coke bottle glasses, maybe.
Well Obama’s history as a disciple of Saul Alinski, should have alerted any thinking person to what a scoundrel he was (and still is).
But this is the age when everybody wants to claim that they also attended Woodstock.
How can a person be so hollow, as to vote for a candidate, simply to make him(er) the first black President..
His history traced back through his Mau mau terrorist grandfather seems to show that is was his ancestors who enslaved the ancestors of America’s black population/ That’s the degree of his empathy with them.
“How can a person be so hollow, as to vote for a candidate, simply to make him(er) the first black President.”
When I was young and stupid I voted for Carter. At the time I was largely ignorant of the differences between political parties and since I was studying engineering at Cornell and he was an engineer, he had to be reasonably intelligent, right? That’s when I learned that for intelligence to be a useful trait, it must be backed up with sound judgement.
If only comrade
StalinObama knew what was going on, he would fix it!When Giaever says:
he is dead on the money.
I have NEVER heard a believer say that AGW is anything but a disaster. These people are Voltaire’s anti-Panglossians: All is for the worst in this worst of possible worlds: They are excessively pessimistic.
Good observation! And why do they think the mild and beneficial warming we had so far is bad? Because they are convinced it is man-made. That’s the core of Green religion: All changes on our planet originating from mankind must be evil…
I would bet a significant amount of money that not a single person on Earth would even dream to claim that some climate warming and an increase of atmospheric CO2 (which is essential plant-food btw !) were dangerous, if it were clear that these changes had natural causes…
My viewpoint on AGW changed many years ago when I asked a speaker at a local lecture on the topic where the points in the world are that are going to be improved by climate change. His response was that there aren’t any. I asked then “Is AGW some kind of sentient being that knows exactly what makes any particular place better or worse from a human viewpoint and then does whatever it takes to make it worse?” He refused to answer my question. I knew then that it was all just a ruse based on guilt over fossil fuels.
Vukcevic, Thank you for a list of those who did not sign.
Could you please provide a list of those who did sign, so that we can be suitably cautious of their future pronouncements, and attack their views where relevant.
Idiots, especially idiots, need to be clearly identified, especially if they are Nobel Laureates.
John K. Sutherland.
They should have to wear a sign that says “I’m stupid” that way you wouldn’t ask them anything—Bill Engvall
“Could you please provide a list of those who did sign”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/03/oddly-nobel-prize-winner-michael-mann-was-not-invited-to-sign-the-mainau-declaration-for-climate-protection/#comment-1978406
36 signatures.
It was published here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/03/oddly-nobel-prize-winner-michael-mann-was-not-invited-to-sign-the-mainau-declaration-for-climate-protection/#comment-1978406
Peter Agre
Michael Bishop
Elizabeth Blackburn
Martin Chalfie
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
Steven Chu
James Cronin
Peter Doherty
Gerhard Ertl
Edmond Fischer
Walter Gilbert
Roy Glauber
David Gross
John Hall
Stefan Hell
Serge Haroche
Jules Hoffmann
Klaus von Klitzing
Harold Kroto
William Moerner
Ferid Murad
Ei-Ichi Negishi
Saul Perlmutter
William Phillips
Richard Roberts
Kailash Satyarthi
Brian Schmidt
Hamilton Smith
George Smoot
Jack Szostak
Roger Tsien
Harold Varmus
Robin Warren
Arieh Warshel
Robert Wilson
Torsten Wiesel
Trenberth’s bio still claims that he was the recipient of a Noble prize. How come he didn’t get to vote?
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/
Dr. Giaever just demonstrated that he puts science and honesty over being a member in good standing of the Intelligentsia.
It’s important that experienced scientists speak up, yet unsurprising that some only do so late in their careers. Better late than never. Well done and thank you!
Just look to the story of Willie Soon to see why that is.
No one wants to step in front of a freight train if they do not have to.
What is amazing is how few have decided they have to.
Was Gore invited to the conference? He is the only individual actually named on the Noble Peace Prize for fear mongering about climate change. If he was, his vote can be easily dismissed as anyone who’s seen his movie will know that his grasp of climate science is limited to a few buzz words and some empty rhetoric.
Sorry about cross posting this in the wrong thread.
I wonder whether the good doctor is prepared to circulate his views to all his laureate colleagues who signed, and ask them for their reaction to his comments.
Well, he is a Norwegian, he’s smarter than the average bear. 🙂
Interesting parallels: Ivar Giaever was born in the Bergen area, and graduated from NTNU in 1952, emigrated to Canada, worked for GE, then to Schenectady, earning a PhD from RPI in 1964. Research into Superconductivity.
My father was born in the Bergen area and graduated from NTNU, went to Seattle area for Masters, returned to Norway, earned a PhD from NTNU in 1958. Emigrated to the US with job offers from GE – Schenectady and GE – Erie. He has 11 patents.
They could have known each other.
I don’t think this will be a problem for the warmists. 30 out of 65 is a 46 percent consensus. NOAA should be able to get that to 97 percent with a few adjustments.
The numbers (>30 signed and 36 non-signed) do not agree with previous reports (36 signed)?????
Right or wrong, “peer reviewed” or not, one of the 3% are to be ignored. /sarc
Those 36 Nobel Laureates who signed a specific statement re: CO2CAGW’s alleged danger probably don’t know that no one else who espouses this fantasy has actually signed a specific statement…at least I am unaware of any other such signings by individuals on their own behalf, except for the 10,000 the Oregon Petition has on its specific declaration against the idea that increasing atmospheric CO2 is in any way dangerous, and is in fact beneficial.
So imo the CO2CAGW Believers don’t have the Consensus either, the evil Skeptics do.
Refreshing to see an honest scientist for a change.
The Ghost of Big Jim Cooley said…..I have come to the conclusion that religious belief is mental illness. It displays many of the facets of it, and because of that, is actually interesting – in psychological terms. It saddens me that faith is causing a plague of terrible suffering on people of the world, and for that reason alone I would ban religious belief if I had the power.
Ghost you are either practicing willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. A few bullet points… If there is no God (religious belief) then life itself has no meaning beyond that of the physical world. Further we are not free at all. We are bound by the laws of science (physics, etc.). Everything we do is a result of chemical reactions, physics…nothing more. If we are bound by the laws of science there is no such thing as free will. No original thought…nothing. So to talk about mental illness is meaningless. Mental illness is just a series of nerve synapses firing in the brain based on influences of various stimulus. There is no morality, no concepts such as justice, peace, love, hate, worry, etc. Killing another human being is not a willful act, but again chemical and physical reactions base in science. The death of a human is no more significant than me slapping a mosquito on my arm. Further, if we are bound by the laws of science only…where do the thoughts of a god come from? Where do the concepts of justice, peace, love, etc. come from? In addition there is no “plague of terrible suffering on the people of the world…it is just science, chemistry, physics. Finally….why do you care about the people suffering…there is no god, no meaning (period). Where did your sense of “caring” come from? Remember we our bound by the laws of science…suffering people is not a problem to be solved, it is just another act of natural selection…or scientific processes….it just is what it is. We have no control, no freedom to act, we just come and go.
mptc
Human moral instincts are as much a product of evolution as mosquito’s blood-sucking instinct. Yes, down to the molecular level, everything is physics, though much of this physics is unknown (and, the more we know, the more will always be unknown).
The level of complexity of the biological physics is such that we are still incapable of making a virus, leave alone a mosquito, while individual human evolutionary moral instincts and their cultural derivatives (commandments, rules, laws, taboos) are so diverse even within local populations as to be incompatible and antagonistic.
Religious faith is simply a projection of self onto the blank screen of the unknown, a short-circuit in the brain — akin to mental illness but, probably, a selectively produced trait that helps to keep the population of slaves in the most malleable condition.
Religious fanatics are usually the bloodiest of killers, because they don’t need to stop and think, they know what’s right and wrong, they must believe what they are told — otherwise, their suspenders from Heaven won’t hold, their pants would drop, and only a naked, thoughtless, disoriented, trembling ape would remain.
Human moral instincts are as much a product of evolution as mosquito’s blood-sucking instinct.
Prove it….saying does not make it true. Please cite some of the moral instincts of elk or grizzly bears, or walleye or yes…even mosquitoes.
Religious fanatics are usually the bloodiest of killers.
Oh really….I will put up your Stalins, Maos, Pol Pots, Hitlers, and Sangers up against any religious fanatic. The atheists have killed many more people, many times over than any religious “fanatic”.
And if there is no god, then what is “bloodiest of killers” mean? There is no morals, there is no right or wrong just science and physics and the laws of nature acting out in its amoral design.
Nice try.
Alexander Feht: ..only a naked, thoughtless, disoriented, trembling ape would remain.
Exactly the result of strict materialism. Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler are merely interesting examples of the deterministic working out of the laws of chemistry and physics.
But we are a bit OT, are we not?
“If we are bound by the laws of science there is no such thing as free will.”
I’m no expert, but if I understand correctly, quantum mechanics suggests that the laws of nature may not be entirely deterministic. Unfortunately that’s not necessarily good news for the concept of “free will”, which may reduce simply to random quantum fluctuations and not “real” choice. 🙁
I’m not sure how it’s helpful to add a divinity or three to the mix: we’re still bound by the laws of nature except where these laws are altered by, for example, a supernatural flying spaghetti monster (FSM). In that case our behavior is determined by the laws of nature plus the FSM, all of which are outside our control, therefore still no “free will”. 🙁
[shrug] Oh well, I won’t off myself just because “free will” is off the table, at least not until I’ve caught up on season 8 of “The Big Bang Theory”. 🙂
If no God no free will…no meaning, we are just random acts of physics. So you are not even free to choose to watch “The Big Bang Theory”, which by the way is a complete contradiction of a life dictated by science. What would be the point of entertainment, comedy…quantum mechanics and evolution cannot begin to explain this. Unless elk, or grizzly bears or fish or mosquitoes have their own network television. What would that be like?
“If no God no free will…”
And, as I pointed out above, if God, still no free will. 🙁
“Unless elk, or grizzly bears or fish or mosquitoes have their own network television.”
They don’t (well, perhaps if they’re household pets), which is one reason I prefer being a deterministic human rather than a deterministic mosquito. 🙂
And of course I screwed up the italics. *sigh* In my defense, I can only plead that I had no free will to get it right. 🙁
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/07/country-most-climate-deniers/
So how long before SPLC lists “deniers” as a hate group?
I will see those 30 and raise you another 31,000.
http://www.experienceproject.com/question-answer/Should-The-Southern-Poverty-Law-Center-List-Global-Warming-Deniers-As-A-Hate-Group/3719605
I guess im way behind on this type of thinking
thank you Dr. Giaver. it takes courage to say what you said.
this needs to be spread far and wide. the MSM must report it or be further exposed for their irrational, unquestioning demonisation of CO2.
I’m sorry, the media are quite rational. They don’t question because it is against their interests. They are interested in advancing their agenda, not science. I think they will be sorry when the government control they espouse is applied to them, and they are told what they may or may not print. When the media are exposed, they’ll just say oops and move on as if nothing happened.
The only people with the power to change the liberal media are its stockholders. If you want to change it, you need a majority in your faction to do so. And to get that you need to buy the stock of those firms. If more than 50% is owned by a single group, or individual, even that method won’t work. Otherwise you have to have a competing product that sucks all their customers away and their business will collapse. I think it is already happening, which is a reason NOT to buy their stock.