Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist: Obama is ‘Dead Wrong’ on Global Warming
(CNSNews.com) -- President Obamas statements on global warming are dead wrong, said Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever, who rejected the president's claims that man-made global warming is causing climate change.I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet, Giaever said in a speech entitled Global Warming Revisited he gave on July 1 to scientists from 90 countries attending the 65th annual Nobel Laureate Meeting in Lindau, Germany.Giaever, who was born in Norway and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1964, was one of three recipients of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973.Although he endorsed Obama in 2008 along with more than 70 other Nobel-winning scientists, Giaever is now criticizing the presidents statements on climate change -- particularly his 2015 State of the Union remark that no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change."The biggest problem Obama faces is climate change? How can he say that?" Giaever asked. "I say this to Obama: 'Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong.' He is dead wrong..."I would say that global warming basically is a non-problem. Just leave it alone, it will take care of itself, he added.On July 3, 36 Nobel laureates attending the meeting signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, which compared human-induced climate change to nuclear war, calling it another threat of comparable magnitude.But Giaever reminded the assembled scientists that climate change has happened all the time, has happened everywhere, and has nothing to do with global warming.So far we have left the world in a better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue, with one exception: we have to stop wasting a huge, I mean huge, amount of money on global warming. We have to do that, he said.Giaever rejected the notion that man-made global warming is an incontrovertible truth, telling his Lindau audience that global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cant discuss it -- its not proper.But he said he was concerned about the United Nations climate change conference, which will be held in Paris later this year.I really worry about that, because when the conference was in Copenhagen, that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think the people who are alarmists are in a very strong position. he warned, accusing them of resorting to scare tactics without having temperature data to back up their claims.If climate change doesnt work to scare people, they can scare people by talking about the extreme weather. That must work, he joked, observing that the U.S. is currently seeing a low period in both hurricane and tornado activity.Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) in 2011 over its official statement on global warming: The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earths physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.In an email to APS executive director, he 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?"Although APS warned of the dangers of global warming, Giaever pointed out in his speech that there has been only a 0.3% increase in the global average temperature (GAT) between 1880 and 2015 (from 288 to 288.8 Kelvin), which he called amazingly stable. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kathleen-brown/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-obama-dead-wrong-global-warming-0
Tags
Who is online
423 visitors
You should go to work for Fox News Corny. You're very sort of a adept at spinning information that appears to represent something it does not.
In the first place, climate science denier, Ivar Giaever, shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 with Leo Esaki and Brian Josephson " for their discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in solids " , which has nothing to do with climate science.
Actually, Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) in 2011 because he disagrees with the groups position on man-made global warming fears. In announcing his formal resignation , he said he cannot live with the APS statement that, as pointed out in the article;
The evidence is incontrovertible : Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earths physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Although the overwhelming majority of Climate Scientist, Geologist, Oceanographers, Climatologists and Astrologist understand the effects of Global Warming on the climate, there are a few that have found a way to disagree with them.....
....and guys like you always find a way to dig up those contrarians and use them to support your political agenda.
That's a real 'knuckledragger' comment if I ever saw one!
Why don't you try posting an intelligent comment with some controverting arguments Mike? Perhaps it would be possible to for you provide some facts to back your asinine rhetoric.
The only thing history is going to do when it looks back on the Climate Change debate, is classify the 'Deniers' with the "Earth is Flat Club"
Btw, your "Global Warming, er, uh, Climate Change", confusion is because you obviously don't understand that the warming of the planet (Global Warming) is the cause of the changes in the climate (Climate Change).
The use of the word obviously is particularly ironic here . For those of us who still have brain cells [unlike yourself] we have awareness of what transpired when the climate alarmists changed the terminology . Warming is a simple concept and a measurable one . But when the warming reached a plateau and stayed there for almost 2 decades the climate alarmists changed the language . No more warming ? Let's call it "climate change" instead . That way we don't have to be accountable for any measurable events ...
I didn't say you did. I just said you should go to work for them, their Right Wing slant and spin rhetoric is right up your ally.
And the bullshit, grossly slanted article is anything but "awesome".
I could not last night, and still cannot, get this comment to post under any other 'Reply' button, so I'm posting it here.
In the first place Petey, the warming trend, in reaching a plateau for a couple of decades has little meaning regarding an event that has been occurring over a period of centuries. Secondly, the terminology you refer to relates to two entirely different, but related things.
The planet is warming, the studies, the research and the science tell us that. And most people have accepted that the planet has warmed an will likely continue to warm. Thus the term 'Global Warming".
Meanwhile, most people that have a brain, and [unlike you] know how to use it, understand that if the average temperature of the earth is getting warmer, it is reasonable to assume it is going to have an effect on the climate, which it has. The oceans are warmer causing a rise in sea levels and more precipitation on land. The natural ecosystems are changing, causing regions to be affected by varying degrees of warming, precipitation, and changes of animal and plant species. Some areas are actually getting cooler as others get warmer. Rainfall patterns are changing, some parts of the planet are getting drier, while others are getting more precipitation.
All of which is referred to as Climate Change, and all of which has been caused by Global Warming. Two different things.
So no one has changed any terminology, it's just that it seems to be a little difficult for some people to understand.
Our eco system is very delicate, another 0.08 might just be all it takes to cause a disaster.
Actually the research has shown a pause in the warming . If you can't agree with that then you don't know how to read a graph . Am I going to waste my time talking with someone who can't read a graph ? Of course not .
He is sharing his opinion, not any research or studies. His prize was in Physics as it relates to semiconductors in 1960. He has done zero studies about climate change. All he is doing is reading what is available online and expressing an opinion. One that is not shared by the vast majority of scientists who actually do study the climate. He has no credibility on the subject and you're going to have to do one hell of a lot better then him to change anyone's minds.
Current climatology is not science . Anything based on a consensus is merely a popularity contest .
But now the planet has 7 billion people, 1.2 billion carbon fueled vehicles (will be 2 billion in 20 yrs.), plus hundreds of millions of carbonemittingindustrial plants and factories. It would seem to me that any reasonable person would understand all that would have to have an effect on the atmosphere and environment.
(finish your Gibson Cerenkov and think about it, you look like a reasonable person)
Bottom line : there are a lot of people so let's go find something to blame on them .
Giaevers'perceptionis in contrast to the opinions of the vast majority of the worlds' scientist.
You like his position because it suits your political agenda.
.... but not noting that such an interference in the natural growth rate of plants could cause mutations in their growth patterns. (which is already happening btw) It's also an admission that the CO2emissionsDO have an effect on the environment.
Perhaps you would care to explain this "fraudulent hoax" you refer to. Also, explain how and whyindividualscientist from all over the world would benefit from such a 'hoax', if it were even possible or conceivable to perpertrate such a grand 'hoax'.
Or is it the Right needs the money from the big corporations, that will have to bear the cost ofemissionscontrols, to fuel their political machine.