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.”
A new ideology is rising, and finds resonance in a variety of venues including the global warming advocacy. The ideology is fundamentally opposed to reason and fact. A hint of the ideology was recently voiced by John Caputo, professor of philosophy at Syracuse, “I think that what modern philosophers call “pure” reason — the Cartesian ego cogito and Kant’s transcendental consciousness — is a white male Euro-Christian construction.” (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/02/looking-white-in-the-face/) Couple this with the emerging philosophy involving race voiced by Zandria Hurston, professor of sociology now at Rhodes College, “Whiteness is most certainly and inevitably terror.” http://www.mrctv.org/blog/whiteness-terror-university-memphis-professor-preaches#.ytriya:ctB0 and one comes to an ideology propounded as follows: reason is white European male, whiteness is bad, therefore reason is bad. The racial narrative, while an important issue, is subsidiary to the larger issue, that reason itself is to be overthrown. The trend in the AGW advocacy seems to follow this tenet, namely that individual reason is to be distrusted and ridiculed, contrary evidence is to be denied, mass political consensus is more important than considerations of evidence and reason, and of course, anyone attempting to make an appeal to reason is viciously and personally attacked and neutralized.
The AGW debate may just be a microcosm of the impending end of the Age of Reason. Reason itself, and by extension the scientific method, sown by the ancients and brought to fruition in the Age of Enlightenment, to which we owe most modern science and mathematics is under attack. The world seems to be descending into an Age of Anti-reason, in which reason and fact are trumped by group allegiance, racial division, and animosities based on religious affiliations. Chaos and darkness await.
FAH commented : “… Chaos and darkness await.”
If enough of us donate money can we make it go away?
FAH,
The reason anti-reason arises is political correctness run amok which leads to lies and twisted facts to obfuscate inconvenient truths (i.e. Gore’s movie). One such truth is that while prejudices driven by race, sex, sexual orientation and religion can never be completely eliminated, all are at historic lows. Another is that while CO2 emissions have a finite effect on the climate, this effect is demonstrably small and without massive effects, the IPCC has no reason to exist.
The U.S Justice Department statistics on hate crimes do not support the contention that such prejudices are at historic lows. The number of reported hate crimes in the U.S. has oscillated between 0.8 and 1.0 (per 1000 persons over age 12) since statistics have been reported (2004). It was 0.8 in 2005, rose to just over 1.0 in 2009, decreased back to 0.8 in 2011, then rose back to 1.0 in 2012. The yearly statistics for 2012 and 2013 show an increase in 2013 over 2012. That is as far as the statistics are reported. It is harder to get statistics for world race, ethnic, religious and gender related animosities, but there are many anecdotal examples ranging from ISIS in the middle east, draw Mohamed contests, Hebdo shootings, increasing anti-semitism in Europe and the like. The point is not that such things are or have been endemic, but rather they are being exploited and connected to political ends more readily by various parties and are now aided by internet connectivity and social media.
We are a far more tolerant society than ever before, although I do see some of those gains being eroded by those who exploit differences to gain support for agendas. Statistics are a funny thing. The evolving definition of what’s a hate crime, increasing hypersensitivity leading to higher reporting rates and an administration engaged in perpetual hate mongering has skewed the statistics. None the less, bouncing between 0.8 and 1 per 1000 seems low and stable relative to what it would have been a 100 years ago, given the same reporting criteria, when racial discrimination was rampant and women were second class citizens who couldn’t even vote. BTW, I don’t consider freedom of expression to be a hate crime (i.e. cartoons disparaging terrorism, religion, warmists, etc.), no matter how politically incorrect that expression is. However, anyone harming someone because they didn’t like what was freely expressed is committing a hate crime, independent of the race, sex or creed of the parties involved, and if any category of hate crime is on the rise, its this one.
What concerns me going forward is terrorism and increased violence from environmental groups (hate crimes) who will become disenfranchised when the truth about CO2 is finally accepted. We can see the seeds of this in how skeptics are treated when they comment on a warmist blog.
I decided a while back to spare myself the pointless hand wringing that results from even reading warmist blogs, much less commenting on them.
Those people love it when realists comment.
Why give them the satisfaction?
Might as well hand out Wiccan literature at Easter Mass.
I occasionally like to poke the beast, for no other reason than identifying the logic behind their insanity so I can better deconstruct it. There’s a lot of anger there and it will get much worse when the truth is eventually accepted. It’s not a matter of if, but when, since in the final analysis, scientific truth always prevails and the skeptics will not go away until it does.
What took him so long? it me 20 minutes once I looked . Better late than never.
yes!…Yes!!…YES!!!
(oui too)
I’m sure you will soon see Dr. Ivar Giaever on “60 Minutes”.
/sarc
I can’t seem to get the video of his speech to play and I’ve tried everything. (well maybe not everything).
http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/34729/ivar-giaever-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever
obviously this Video has been removed from the Lindau page …
I got it with this link:
http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/abstracts/34535/ivar-giaever-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever
Jürgen Michele
Covered by MSM here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/7/nobel-physicist-obama-dead-wrong-global-warming/ (2nd most popular)
Google shows several reports from Germany, didn’t try translating.
This was robably missed because as usual skeptical sites XXXXX it up. The clue was “Nobel PHYSICIST” prize winner, (not nobel prize winner, could have been for making bread), which was not mentioned on any headline
Should have been “Probably”. The video does not work for me as I have been trying to view it the whole day. Its either blocked or not viewable. Not on U tube either. Does not surprise me. Paranoia yours truly LOL
I would suggest that the root cause of this controversy is not religion or policy.
I would suggest the root cause is lack of scientific integrity:
To many endorse the Baconian method of science. A method which largely rely on induction.
To few endorse the empirical method as formulated by Karl Popper. A method which largely rely on attempts of falsification.
Maybe it is time to revive Karl Popper and his empirical method
The first part of his book “The logic of scientific discovery” is easy reading and quite refreshing:
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
Is there any way I can correct my silly misspellings?
Anthony- can you clarify if it was 30 or 36 that signed the declaration? I’ve been referencing this article all over the place, and I’m getting conflicting numbers- their website says 36- just wondering where the number 30 came from?
As far as I know
36 signed the declaration
29 did not sign the declaration
(This does not mean that I think the exact numbers really matters.)
30 probably comes from an early statement that more than 30 signed.
You will find a list over those who signed here:
http://www.lindau-nobel.org/ (Home/Maineau declaration/Signatories)
Here is an unofficial list over those who did not sign (There must be a few errors on the list):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/03/oddly-nobel-prize-winner-michael-mann-was-not-invited-to-sign-the-mainau-declaration-for-climate-protection/#comment-1978750
It would be interesting to know what the subjects were of the Nobel Laureates who signed and of those who did not. Any link to that information?
arnoarrak did a tedious job on that 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-1979322
Exactly my question as well.
It is an ideological trigger warning when all solutions to a perceived problem converge towards the same socialist and statist ends. That being less personal liberty, bigger government, more restrictions, less choice, increased regulation and mandates like how many gallons a toilet uses to flush or what kind of light bulbs are sold to consumers.
Maybe Dr. Ivar Giaever would like to circulate a petition among like-minded scientists based upon his own resignation letter or an updated version of the Oregon Petition, among the signers of which is Dr. Freeman Dyson.
The latter reads:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Could take it further and state that a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm would be likely to raise GASTA only 0-2 degrees C at equilibrium, rather than the 2.1-4.5 degrees derived from the IPCC’s GIGO, falsified models, and that at this point science cannot even say if the net effect of human activity on global temperature is to warm or cool the planet, but in any case is not significant.
Now Trending in Politics #1 on Fox News:
Nobel Prize-winning scientist says Obama is ‘dead wrong’ on global warming
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/08/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-says-obama-is-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/?intcmp=latestnews
One of the great misconceptions of the scientifically-illiterate is the assumption that every scientist is an expert in all areas of science, somewhat akin to the Professor on Gilligan’s Island.
The “expert” opinions of scientists who study quantum mechanics, or astrophysics, or nuclear chemistry, or plate tectonics are not going to have the same gravitas as the conclusions of scientists who actually have spent their careers studying atmospheric chemistry or climatology.
It would be no different than if you had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, and so you sought out the expertise of several oncologists and neurosurgeons to discuss your options … but then a couple of proctologists overhearing the conversations gave their two cents and insisted that their opinions carried as much weight as those of the consulted doctors.
It would make no sense to give much credence to the advise given by the proctologists … unless your head was lodged up your ass.
Except for the fact that the ones who have spent their careers doing climatology are the ones with their heads firmly wedged in the asses of those handing out the money for politically correct answers. No other branch of science has been so extremely compromised by the almighty dollar.
If a plumber managed to fix my car while the Ph.D. in Auto Mechanic Science stripped the gears, I would think again.
The infamous climate alarmist in Australia is Tim Flannery. His first degree level qualification is English literature. Ross Garnout, the “architect” of the “proice ohn cahbon”, Gillard said would not happen, is an economist. So, based on this, I can be a “climate scientist” because I passed home economics and English GSE “O” levels while in school.
Patrick.
Tim Flannery also has a Master of Science degree in Earth Science and a Doctorate in Palaeontology.
Not the usual curriculum for a high school in Australia.
I said his FIRST degree level qualification.
BTW, I have studied earth science too, but I didn’t get a 3 day per week job paying AU$180k/pa.
Dr. Ivar Giaever is entitled to his opinion of course. What is missing is a study in the scientific literature of why he thinks Global Warming is a hoax.
““Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.””
Really? I see people discussing Global Warming all the time.
harrytwinotter commented : “…Really? I see people discussing Global Warming all the time.”
You must be a lip reader. Any ‘discussion’ going on in the MSM is one way witch hunting, shaming, and personal attacks against skeptics. There has been no, none, nada scientific “discussion”. Even the so called “debate” that was supposed to “settle” the ‘science’ never happened. People who are on the fence about AGW are wondering why the skeptics’ voices have been silenced and you should be wondering too.
The Time article from July 3, 2015 (http://time.com/3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/) says that 36 of them signed. Your article says only 30. Can you clarify. I just want to make sure I have it right because I’m sure I’ll get challenged.
[that typo is corrected in the article, please refresh -mod]
This man sounds like a fool. He endorsed Obama, a young man with no experience who has hidden his academic record from view, because he wanted a “visionary” president.
What are these people smoking?
Idiots, all of them. Perfect examples of why we should reject central planning. The planners are idiots.
The second the scientist used the words global warming I stopped listening. Climate change is real, it is happening, and anyone who says otherwise is a stupid ignorant ostrich with their head in the sand. Wonder how hot it’s going to be in Australia this year?