Click to get your own widget

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Nobel Physics Prize Winner Ivar Giaever Resigns from APS in Disgust at Warming Alarm Scam

  The American Physical Society has a very politically correct view of catastrophic warming claiming ""The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

  However not all scientists are prepared to ignore the dishonesty of their "professional" body.

In his resignation note, Ivar Giaever wrote: "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, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973, is an institute professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., a professor at large at the University of Oslo, and the president of Applied BioPhysics Inc...
"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. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993," he continued.
"Moreover, 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 added.
  Lets see if the BBC, which has regularly led the news with "Scientists say global warming is worse than previously..." because some minor researcher has said something without evidence will report this. Clearly if they have an respect for the "due balance" they are legally required to show it will not only lead the news but come out as a newsflash several minutes before. Nope. As I write this Google News has 12 reports, 2 from the relatively trustworthy Fox News and none from the ever corrupt lying fascist parasites of the BBC or indeed  any other part of the UK MSM.

   We have long had the supporters of alarmism claiming that sceptics are "anti-science" (I have sent a letter to the Spectator and will to others suggesting they apologise - I will report if any of them publish it). Clearly telling a Nobel winner in Physics (not like Gores Nobel for political; correctness) is "anti-science" is not something which any alarmist with any slightest hint of integrity could do or even could support others doing. So doubtless every single member of the alarmist community who is not personally a corrupt, wholly dishonest, fascist, parasite, deliberately lying to us will wish to apologise to Professor Giaever. I do not exclude the possibility that there is, somewhere, some member of the alarmist community who, under sufficient prodding, is capable of showing 1 millionth as much integrity as a decent human being..

Labels: , ,

One aging non-expert flouts his colleagues, once again proving that ultimately you can find anyone who will say anything to fit any preference you wish--but *not* a majority of physicists, who reject Giaever.

Mr. Craig you have no idea why APS took the position it does. You have simply cherry picked one dissenter--a frail, aging man 30 decades past his research prime--because his unoriginal points conform to your preferences.
The practice of science is not democratic. A majority maintaining a view does not make that view correct. The validity of a scientific opinion at any one time is how well it accords with the experimental evidence - and that is an on going thing. To call a nobel prize laureat in physics a non expert is absurd, when meteorology is based on physics. His age and "frailty" are also of no account, unless you can furnish proof of dementia. Professor Giaever was correct in pointing out that there is a double standard at work when speculation in the abscence (so far ) of changes in fundamental constants over time, is OK, but that constructive skepticism about the implications of imperfect meteorological data is beyond question. Neil Craig's theories about APS are his own and he can defend them, can you give better reasons other than a bald statement why he may be incorrect? You are aware are you not that 30 decades is three hundred years , but that professor Giaever received his Nobel prize in 1973. The points he made may not be original ( as if that mattered ), but neither are yours, and whilst his have evidence to back them, yours appear to put emotion above reason. I note also that you so lack the courage of your convictions by remaining anonymous.
regards Sandy Henderson
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.