Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

reply to post by TsukiLunar


www.prisonplanet.com...

here's a link of the IPCC retracting a statement about glacier melt that they used to get grant money.

www.digitaljournal.com...

reply to post by juleol

Nice going.. using wikipedia as a source instead of actually checking the actual scientific papers.

Okay? Well, you check it out. I am not your father. I already did so.

And of course there are more people who publish for pro AGW side when they only hand out funding to those who want to prove that global warming is real. The funny part is that they dont even accept the science if they happen to come to a different conclusion than proving global warming.

Sounds like a pretty unsubstantiated claim to me. Have sources?

So can you explain why it was warmer earlier in holocene? If you even know what that word is...

With pleasure

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Also maybe some of the warming has to do with the sun having been more active than in 8000+ years over the last decades?

This sounded wrong to me(mostly because i am really into astronomy). Turns out, it was.

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

www.skepticalscience.com...

Sources are legit, how about taking a look?

Originally posted by babuthegreat
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

www.prisonplanet.com...

here's a link of the IPCC retracting a statement about glacier melt that they used to get grant money.

www.digitaljournal.com...

Then clearly he got called out on and it was resolved. This works more in my favor than yours. I asserted that that is how the scientific method worked.

Allow me to quote myself.

Published works are under close scrutiny by other scientist. Looking for any reason to prove it wrong.

Clearly I was right. Same goes for the Glaciers.

Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by The Old American

 

So what is your point? Should we just go ahead full speed ahead onto the rickety bridge because no one has proved positively that it is rickety?

... or should we proceed with caution and be prepared for the worst, just in case? As far as the world's atmosphere goes, our health is pretty dependent on its health, and not polluting it would be a good thing, whether or not the extra CO2 is proven to be a problem or not.

I really don't understand the motives of people who try and defend avoidance of changing things for the better with spurious arguments that accomplish nothing useful; at least for Joe Citizen. Continuing with unbridled fossil fuel use helps only those that produce it and profit from it. Being their patsy seems to be the only game here.

"Proceeding with caution" doesn't have to equal "go bankrupt". Of course we should maintain clean air, clean water policies. But killing businesses, thus driving up costs, thus driving up prices isn't helping either. There has to be a middle ground. Especially since there's zero proof either way.

We're burning the crops because one ear of corn died.

/TOA

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Have you read the method that they use to measure the AIR temperature? Here ya go

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Here's an interesting article i found on the subject i found: amlibpub.blogspot.com...

reply to post by burntheships


Uhm.. what does a physicist know about global warming?

Just to clarify, people here seem to be sticking words in this physicist's mouth. He did not state that GW is a myth, or that he disagrees with it. Here is what he said:

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."

His beef with them is their claim that the evidence is "incontrovertible". He is simply stating that science cannot make such absolute claims without overwhelming evidence, and in this case there is no overwhelming evidence. There is evidence, but it's still being debated and no consensus has been reached, so for any scientific body to claim the evidence is "incontrovertible" is inappropriate at this stage, and this is why he resigned. Here's another quote on his position:

Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot's more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared. “I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.

He makes an excellent point, I'm in my 50's and remember quite well the hype about acid rain being a world-changing concern, and who that's 30+ can forget the alarmists screaming about how the hole in the ozone layer was going to bring an end to the world.

Personally I think we need to greatly reduce our fossil fuel usage because GW aside, we are polluting our environment and causing unneeded health problems to ourselves. We could easily do this in America through building huge solar fields in our deserts. I took a seminar in which it was discussed that a solar field 1/4 the size of Nevada would provide electricity for 100% of the country. Imagine no coal, oil or natural gas being needed for electricity! Obviously we can't cover 1/4 of Nevada, but that same area spread throughout the country is completely reasonable. It would be a perfect way for the government to put people back to work via a massive public works program just like Ike did with the freeway projects back in the 50's.

We get so caught up arguing over whether GW is real or not that we completely disregard the fact that there are plenty of very real environmental impacts from fossil fuel use that any of us can see (and smell) all around us. We need to quit focusing on proving each other wrong and focus on fixing it.

reply to post by babuthegreat

Have you read the method that they use to measure the AIR temperature? Here ya go www.telegraph.co.uk...

From your own link.

Yet according to Mr Parker, the new results do not undermine the case for global warming: "It is raising questions about the interpretation of the sea-surface data."

But, he must be in cohorts with Al' Gore too.

Here's an interesting article i found on the subject i found: amlibpub.blogspot.com...

.

Anyone can start a blog... If i cant source wiki, i don't think you can source this.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by burntheships

 

Uhm.. what does a physicist know about global warming?

Exactly! Thats just too easy though..

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by burntheships

 

This is like saying you needed bother with that tetanus shot. I know you stepped on a rusty nail but lets just wait and see what happens. It is not sound logic and it is dangerous.

Oops, terrible analogy. Last thing I'd be looking for after standing on a rusty nail is a tetanus shot from the arseholics at Big Pharma.

There has been a growing recognition that no controlled scientific study (in which half the patients were given the vaccine and the other half were given injections of sterile water) has ever been carried out to prove the safety and effectiveness of the tetanus vaccine. Evidence for the vaccine comes from epidemiologic studies which are by nature controversial and which do not satisfy the criteria for scientific proof.

The tetanus vaccine over the decades has been progressively weakened in order to reduce the considerable reaction (fever and swelling) it used to cause. Accompanying this reduction in reactivity has been a concomitant reduction in antigenicity (the ability to confer protection). Therefore, there is a good chance that today’s tetanus vaccine is about as effective as tap water.

Until the last few years, government statistics admitted that 40 percent of the child population of the U.S. was not immunized. For all those decades, where were the tetanus cases from all those rusty nails?

nccn.net...

Go ahead and believe the PR if you like. I'll regard anything that appears 'self-evident' because the govt. says so, as highly suspect. Vaccines, reasons for going to war, anthropogenic global warming ...

reply to post by TsukiLunar


So, instead of concerning yourself with the fact that global warming is now shown to be over inflated by 40%, you're more worried about qouting one line from the article showing that the a member of the team chose to not stir up controversy with the findings. The simple fact is, global warming has been shown not to be anywhere near as bad as what the government funded scientists are trying to make the general public believe. Compared to the amount of CO2 realised by one active volcano, the amount of man made pollutants in the air is like a proverbial drop in the bucket.

I never said you can't use link to Wiki as a source. Don't attribute others arguements to me. You feel free to use whatever sources you want to.

reply to post by babuthegreat

So, instead of concerning yourself with the fact that global warming is now shown to be over inflated by 40%, you're more worried about qouting one line from the article showing that the a member of the team chose to not stir up controversy with the findings.

I don't know why you would say that. He IS your source. You would think his opinion would carry more weight.

The simple fact is, global warming has been shown not to be anywhere near as bad as what the government funded scientists are trying to make the general public believe.

All climatologist are not government sellouts. Yet 97% subscribe to GW.

I never said you can't use link to Wiki as a source. Don't attribute others arguements to me. You feel free to use whatever sources you want to.

You can do the same and I will argue against, just as you will do mine. Star for this comment though.

Originally posted by The Old American
Both the "global warming" climatologists and the "climate change" ones have been bought and paid for, the former by groups that want to regulate business into the ground, and the latter by groups that have in turn been bought by unscrupulous businesses that want to keep the status quo.
/TOA

Exactly. And "global warming" and "climate change" are at the center of this multi -billion dollar
Climate Cash Cow.

Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake. Therefore, many people who recognize the scientific fraud underlying global warming claims are likely to defend it anyway. Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing "green cars." General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs so that they can force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). Farmers and ethanol manufacturers have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product, not to mention massive subsidies. Thousands of major corporations around the world have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions including giants like IBM, Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Dell have vowed to become "carbon neutral."

Then there's Chicago Climate Futures Exchange that plans to trade in billions of dollars of greenhouse gas emission allowances. Corporate America and labor unions, as well as their international counterparts have a huge multi-trillion dollar financial stake in the perpetuation of the global warming fraud. Federal, state and local agencies have spent billions of dollars and created millions of jobs to deal with one aspect or another of global warming. www.fieldandstream.com...

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Just a short aside? This sort of intelligent discussion is exactly why I joined ATS. Thank you very much for this, I'm highly enjoying this.

Back on topic: The reality of global warming is this, there hasn't been official data collection on the subject for anywhere near a long enough time to prove that we're not just experiencing natural temperature fluctuations. Looking back 150 years in the Earth's lifetime is like looking back 15 minutes in your own.

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by Honor93

 

There are plenty of sources that refute everything about this scientists' non-existent "expertise" on Global Warming. This story isn't about GW - it's about Big Oil trying to deny the truth to the public by parading it's paid GW "experts" before the Press with non-scientific stories designed to confuse people and prolong their own mega-profits for as long as humanly possible - while the world burns.

'Nuff said.

Exactly right. There were a lot of respected scientists who said smoking was healthy back in the day too.

People who believe humans aren't contributing to global warming are no better than the fools who would swear smoking is healthy

The only way to know for sure that we caused global warming is to remove our species from this planet and watch it for 2000 years to see if it happens with out us naturally. Otherwise it is impossible to prove 100%. The use of the word incontrovertible is astounding for scientists seeing as their theory has no basis of proof. The numbers they use are made up and guessed on and we are expected to just take their word for it that this is true?

What kind of "scientists" are these people? They totally detracted from what Science is.

reply to post by babuthegreat

This sort of intelligent discussion is exactly why I joined ATS. Thank you very much for this, I'm highly enjoying this.

Thank you. I am enjoying it as well.

`The reality of global warming is this, there hasn't been official data collection on the subject for anywhere near a long enough time to prove that we're not just experiencing natural temperature fluctuations

According to NASA, reliable instrumental test go back to 1880.

The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change.

data.giss.nasa.gov...

However, there are other methods of looking at past temperatures

Borehole data are direct measurements of temperature from boreholes drilled into the Earth crust. Departures from the expected increase in temperature with depth (the geothermal gradient) can be interpreted in terms of changes in temperature at the surface in the past, which have slowly diffused downward, warming or cooling layers meters below the surface.

.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

There is also Proxy Data to consider.

Examples of proxies include ice cores, tree rings, boreholes, corals, and lake and ocean sediments. The deposition or growth rates of the proxies' material is influenced by the climatic conditions of the time in which they were laid down or grew. Chemical traces produced by climatic changes, such as quantities of particular isotopes, can be recovered from proxies. Some proxies, such as gas bubbles trapped in ice, enable traces of the ancient atmosphere to be recovered and measured directly to provide a history of fluctuations in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is a combined into this(go to bottom of page for graph)

* Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century. * The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

Clearly, since the industrial age has begun we can see that there has been a sharp increase in global temperature. That is, if the National Environmental Satellite, data, and Information service is to be believed.

reply to post by EspyderMan


Or you could watch the temps increase on our neighbor planets and wonder how so many coal fired power plants got there?

Originally posted by WhoDat09
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

I think "man made" global warming hasn't been proven in anything, all science is basically just a bunch of guesses anyway..... who knows which "side" is right.

That opinion if its guessing, its not science.

Originally posted by EspyderMan
The only way to know for sure that we caused global warming is to remove our species from this planet and watch it for 2000 years to see if it happens with out us naturally. Otherwise it is impossible to prove 100%. The use of the word incontrovertible is astounding for scientists seeing as their theory has no basis of proof. The numbers they use are made up and guessed on and we are expected to just take their word for it that this is true?

What kind of "scientists" are these people? They totally detracted from what Science is.

I think you should read my post that is below yours.

Edit: To all, i have to start my shift now. I will be back.