Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 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. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.

Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: ‘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.’

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.”

Here is the actual letter...

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
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.

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.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973

Let the hating begin...

ah at last someone with Integrity and Conscience...

right or wrong.. he resigned from all the crappola...

you can fool some of the people some of the time  but!!!!..

and to claim there is one source and one source only for changing anything on this planet... is a kind of madness in itself..

Since we are on a Nobel Prize theme...


“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.


And now from home....

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.” An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.


more....


2010 saw the once vaunted UN IPCC now become the object of ridicule and scrutiny. In June 2010, Climate Scientist Mike Hulme took apart a key claim. Hulme noted that claims such as “2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate” are disingenuous. Hulme noted that the key scientific case for Co2 driving global warming was reached by a very small gaggle of people. “That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.”

What if it is one big hoax , and we make the world a better place to live . For nothing.

Clean air is overated anyway  :D

Its time wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:05pm:

What if it is one big hoax , and we make the world a better place to live . For nothing. Clean air is overated anyway  :D

CO2 isn't 'dirty'.  That's kinda the point.

What if it is one big hoax and we spend trillions of dollars trying (and failing) to fix a non-existent problem while billions die of starvation?

Starvation is over-rated anyway.

Its time wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:05pm:

Clean air is overated anyway

No, Not over-rated. The atmosphere has been cleaned up a lot since the late 70's. Think smoggy London etc. Global Brightening has been attributed in part to rising temperatures.

the science is real.. honest..  :D :D :D

Is he a climate scientist? No. Next.

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:15pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 5:05pm: Clean air is overated anyway No, Not over-rated. The atmosphere has been cleaned up a lot since the late 70's. Think smoggy London etc. Global Brightening has been attributed in part to rising temperatures.

It's more weightless gas you snapstick  :D :D :D :D :D

It's more weightless gas you snapstick  :D :D :D :D :D

It's more weightless gas you snapstick  :D :D :D :D :D

::) ::) oh noes, the libbos are laughing stocks at the pub every friday night,.................................................AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:'( :'(

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:29pm:

Is he a climate scientist? No. Next.

There's this witch doctor that lives in the Amazonian rainforest, he said global warming is a hoax.

So there!!!!

cods wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 4:56pm:

ah at last someone with Integrity and Conscience... right or wrong.. he resigned from all the crappola... you can fool some of the people some of the time  but!!!!.. and to claim there is one source and one source only for changing anything on this planet... is a kind of madness in itself..

HAVEN'T YOU GOT METHO TO DRINK?  :-? :-?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 5:29pm: Is he a climate scientist? No. Next. There's this witch doctor that lives in the Amazonian rainforest, he said global warming is a hoax. So there!!!!

THE VINE TOLD HIM  :D :D :D :D

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:29pm:

Is he a climate scientist? No. Next.

'Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University.'

http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45

Not a climate scientist.

Edit:

'Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth is a Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. From New Zealand, he obtained his Sc. D. in meteorology in 1972 from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.'

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/

Also not a climate scientist.

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:48pm:

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 5:29pm: Is he a climate scientist? No. Next. 'Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University.' http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45 Not a climate scientist.

what are your credentials buddy ?

FFS people

Why should we listen to a nobel prize laureate when we can blindly follow the rants of the Australian Greens

They are leading us to the promise land where we all eat steaks that doesn't come from cows

My credentials ? I'm not a climate scientist either.;D ;D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:37pm:

It's more weightless gas you snapstick

Smog is a weightless gas?

cods wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 4:56pm:

ah at last someone with Integrity and Conscience... right or wrong.. he resigned from all the crappola... you can fool some of the people some of the time  but!!!!.. and to claim there is one source and one source only for changing anything on this planet... is a kind of madness in itself..

Nobody is claiming that, it's damn strawman.

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:13pm:

Nobody is claiming that, it's damn strawman.

Ahh, the resident expert on strawmen.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:12pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 5:05pm: What if it is one big hoax , and we make the world a better place to live . For nothing. Clean air is overated anyway  :D CO2 isn't 'dirty'.  That's kinda the point. What if it is one big hoax and we spend trillions of dollars trying (and failing) to fix a non-existent problem while billions die of starvation? Starvation is over-rated anyway.

How is embracing clean energy supplies and reducing pollution creating starvation ?

Its time wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:05pm:

What if it is one big hoax , and we make the world a better place to live . For nothing. Clean air is overated anyway  :D

I have no problem making the world a cleaner, better place. I do have a problem with us going broke and being driven into poverty or rushing into using unreliable renewable energy sources on a mass scale that leads to problems such as an unreliable power grid. The global warming church would have us believe that an enormous calamity is just around the corner if we don't shut down all coal power yesterday. The truth is even if we did, it would still be about 150 years for changes to be noticeable in the atmosphere.

Its time wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:00pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 5:12pm: Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 5:05pm: What if it is one big hoax , and we make the world a better place to live . For nothing. Clean air is overated anyway  :D CO2 isn't 'dirty'.  That's kinda the point. What if it is one big hoax and we spend trillions of dollars trying (and failing) to fix a non-existent problem while billions die of starvation? Starvation is over-rated anyway. How is embracing clean energy supplies and reducing pollution creating starvation ?

by doing it in an economically irresponsible way, it can very easily lead to poverty, etc.

It is really quite awesomely hilarious watching some of you clowns dismiss the opinions of Nobel Laureates in Physics no less just because they disagree with ignorant, uneducated dopes like Gore.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:29pm:

Is he a climate scientist? No. Next.

There is no qualification called 'climate scientist' There is no degree in climate science. There are a large number of disciplines that interconnect to form climate science. And yet the loudest noises come from POLITICAL scientists, economist and politicians.

.

What is the problem with embracing clean energy and reducing pollution , minus the hyperbole ?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:12pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 5:05pm: What if it is one big hoax , and we make the world a better place to live . For nothing. Clean air is overated anyway  :D I have no problem making the world a cleaner, better place. I do have a problem with us going broke and being driven into poverty or rushing into using unreliable renewable energy sources on a mass scale that leads to problems such as an unreliable power grid. The global warming church would have us believe that an enormous calamity is just around the corner if we don't shut down all coal power yesterday. The truth is even if we did, it would still be about 150 years for changes to be noticeable in the atmosphere.

So we dont think of our great grandkids future ? What is it with conservatives and its all about me attitude?

Its time wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:20pm:

What is the problem with embracing clean energy and reducing pollution , minus the hyperbole ?

We have reduced pollution mightily since the 70's.

We have more people suffering from asthma in spite of this cleaner atmosphere. Studies have suggested his may be due to "super" cleaning agents, so that children do not get exposed as much at home. It may be being exacerbated by children not playing outside as much any more; and thus getting exposed to toxins outdoors.

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:18pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 6:13pm: Nobody is claiming that, it's damn strawman. Ahh, the resident expert on strawmen.

Sorry I just get frustrated when people attack positions that are really what is being claimed.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:26pm:

It is really quite awesomely hilarious watching some of you clowns dismiss the opinions of Nobel Laureates in Physics no less just because they disagree with ignorant, uneducated dopes like Gore.

Well it isn't his area of expertise, but at least he does understand science so that's a plus. Like I said there are detractors in every field.

Even from an economic perspective clean energy completely goes over some peoples heads , we had 4.5 billion worth of clean energy projects in the pipeline and the CEFC being matched 3:1 from private capital, it was clearly working well on a financial level. Australia had the opportunity to be a world leader in renewables but took the lets do what everybody else is doing after Sept 2013. Foolish given our mining sector is in a recession this very moment.

No Governments are listening to the deniers are they....Ask yourself why???

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/257775_Ivar_Giaevers_links_to_Exxon_M

::) ::) ::)

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:31pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:20pm: What is the problem with embracing clean energy and reducing pollution , minus the hyperbole ? We have reduced pollution mightily since the 70's. We have more people suffering from asthma in spite of this cleaner atmosphere. Studies have suggested his may be due to "super" cleaning agents, so that children do not get exposed as much at home. It may be being exacerbated by children not playing outside as much any more; and thus getting exposed to toxins outdoors.

We've reduced it since the 70s so lets stop now?  Is the trend in pollution reduction keeping up with worldwide population increase since the 70s ?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:12pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 5:05pm: What if it is one big hoax , and we make the world a better place to live . For nothing. Clean air is overated anyway  :D CO2 isn't 'dirty'.  That's kinda the point. What if it is one big hoax and we spend trillions of dollars trying (and failing) to fix a non-existent problem while billions die of starvation? Starvation is over-rated anyway.

CO2 is a pollutant.

Starvation is more likely with global warming, along with deaths from cyclones, flooding etc.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:12pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 5:05pm: What if it is one big hoax , and we make the world a better place to live . For nothing. Clean air is overated anyway  :D I have no problem making the world a cleaner, better place. I do have a problem with us going broke and being driven into poverty or rushing into using unreliable renewable energy sources on a mass scale that leads to problems such as an unreliable power grid. The global warming church would have us believe that an enormous calamity is just around the corner if we don't shut down all coal power yesterday. The truth is even if we did, it would still be about 150 years for changes to be noticeable in the atmosphere.

You have a problem with change. That is what all your posts here add up to. Well, the climate is changing, the globe is warming and we keep pumping GHGs into the atmosphere. That has to change—that dreaded word again!

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:

No Governments are listening to the deniers are they....Ask yourself why??? http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/257775_Ivar_Giaevers_links_to_Exxon_M ::) ::) ::)

Heh, thought it would be something like that.

Its time wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:51pm:

We've reduced it since the 70s so lets stop now?

What is the level of pollution now? What is the cost of getting it cleaner and how much would that expenditure impact health?

The law of diminishing returns.

We can close dirty polluting brown coal fired generators. More renewable energy generation and nuclear energy to power industry. That will reduce GHG emissions.

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:

No Governments are listening to the deniers are they....Ask yourself why??? http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/257775_Ivar_Giaevers_links_to_Exxon_M

Oh no evil oil. The ones that did climate research and never told anyone.

http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/energy-and-environment/climate_peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf

10 pages

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:14pm:

Back to GHG's. The earth is not a greenhouse.

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:10pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:51pm: We've reduced it since the 70s so lets stop now? What is the level of pollution now? What is the cost of getting it cleaner and how much would that expenditure impact health? The law of diminishing returns.

Your putting a price on clean air, goodness me , it is all about you , Armpit had the foresight to roughly predict the benefits to our future generations, is it their problem is it? You can't see the big picture can you grasshopper  ::)

And completely missing the economic benefits of being a world leader in renewables.

Its time wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:25pm:

Your putting a price on clean air, goodness me , it is all about you , Armpit had the foresight to roughly predict the benefits to our future generations, is it their problem is it? You can't see the big picture can you grasshopper

You don't get it do you. As things get cleaner it costs more to get that extra bit cleaner. Where do you want to stop?

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:28pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 9:25pm: Your putting a price on clean air, goodness me , it is all about you , Armpit had the foresight to roughly predict the benefits to our future generations, is it their problem is it? You can't see the big picture can you grasshopper You don't get it do you. As things get cleaner it costs more to get that extra bit cleaner. Where do you want to stop?

Yeah  get it's about the bottom line for just you  ;)

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:29pm:

Is he a climate scientist? No. Next.

He IS a lot smarter than you, however. Not that that's a difficult accomplishment.  ;D

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:45pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 7:26pm: It is really quite awesomely hilarious watching some of you clowns dismiss the opinions of Nobel Laureates in Physics no less just because they disagree with ignorant, uneducated dopes like Gore. Well it isn't his area of expertise, but at least he does understand science so that's a plus. Like I said there are detractors in every field.

Physics is an integral part of climate science. He is more than qualified to comment. BTW there is no qualification called 'climate scientist'.

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:

No Governments are listening to the deniers are they....Ask yourself why??? http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/257775_Ivar_Giaevers_links_to_Exxon_M ::) ::) ::)

So out with the character assassination and from such a reliable source as a website built in a guys basement.

But even more important is the refusal to permit anyone to have a contrary opinion without claiming they are paid for it. Why would a Nobel laureate do that? Why would he need to? His reputation is his most valuable asset and perhaps - just perhaps - he actually BELIEVES what he says.

But, we can't have this no, can we?

A thread about Al Gore would get the climate hysterics salivating... but a Nobel Laureate in physics???

Maybe he should have claimed to have invented the internet.

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:21pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 9:14pm: Back to GHG's. The earth is not a greenhouse.

So why aren't we all freezing?

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:10pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 8:51pm: We've reduced it since the 70s so lets stop now? What is the level of pollution now? What is the cost of getting it cleaner and how much would that expenditure impact health? The law of diminishing returns.

If you want to talk about a law of diminishing returns than I challenge you to also entertain Jevons Paradox in the same sermon  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

You can't because you are a yellow chicken foreign vested interest who hates every single Australian who ever died fighting for this country  :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:28pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 9:25pm: Your putting a price on clean air, goodness me , it is all about you , Armpit had the foresight to roughly predict the benefits to our future generations, is it their problem is it? You can't see the big picture can you grasshopper You don't get it do you. As things get cleaner it costs more to get that extra bit cleaner. Where do you want to stop?

Now you want to talk about overheads  and the equations of profit  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yeh, you got acumen buddy.... you got the acumen of a crack-smoking daddy smoker  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 7:12pm: Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 5:05pm: What if it is one big hoax , and we make the world a better place to live . For nothing. Clean air is overated anyway  :D I have no problem making the world a cleaner, better place. I do have a problem with us going broke and being driven into poverty or rushing into using unreliable renewable energy sources on a mass scale that leads to problems such as an unreliable power grid. The global warming church would have us believe that an enormous calamity is just around the corner if we don't shut down all coal power yesterday. The truth is even if we did, it would still be about 150 years for changes to be noticeable in the atmosphere. You have a problem with change. That is what all your posts here add up to. Well, the climate is changing, the globe is warming and we keep pumping GHGs into the atmosphere. That has to change—that dreaded word again!

Armchair has a problem with logic: he may aswell be michael kroger or whatever  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 7:13pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 7:00pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 5:12pm: Its time wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 5:05pm: What if it is one big hoax , and we make the world a better place to live . For nothing. Clean air is overated anyway  :D CO2 isn't 'dirty'.  That's kinda the point. What if it is one big hoax and we spend trillions of dollars trying (and failing) to fix a non-existent problem while billions die of starvation? Starvation is over-rated anyway. How is embracing clean energy supplies and reducing pollution creating starvation ? by doing it in an economically irresponsible way, it can very easily lead to poverty, etc.

What is the definition of 'economically irresponsible' ?

;) ;)

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:18pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 6:13pm: Nobody is claiming that, it's damn strawman. Ahh, the resident expert on strawmen.

says the cods supporter   ::) ::)

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:13pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 4th, 2015 at 5:37pm: It's more weightless gas you snapstick Smog is a weightless gas?

You don't even know what smog is mate so take that up your hole  :D :D :D :D :D