Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, September 19, 2011 18:34
VIEWED: 4626
PAGE 1 of 1

AURAPTOR

Thursday, September 15, 2011 9:05 AM

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.
Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.
Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is inconvertible."

"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?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … 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 email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.
"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signer of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicis
t-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/#ixzz1Y0416ZbB

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

BYTEMITE

Thursday, September 15, 2011 1:52 PM

"Falseify" is a bit harsh. However, they might have an investment in an idea that maybe causes them to reject or accept data they shouldn't, or refine a calculation or model to fit with their existing expectations. If there have been mistakes, I don't think they're malicious. And the temperature data out there, like by NOAA, adjusted or not, does show a bit of a warming trend over the last fifty years, at least in the northern hemisphere. There has not been much warming in the southern hemisphere as I recall.

I think we're still trying to get the whole picture in regards to atmospheric science and climate, so I'd agree "Incontrovertible" is generally not a word you want to see in a research field.

1KIKI

Thursday, September 15, 2011 2:51 PM

"Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors."

And that makes him an expert in climate science .... HOW again? It's like asking your dentist to work on your car - because he's a dentist and should know!

Now that I think about it, this seems to indicate Rap's reverence for 'authorities' (as long as they agree with him) and disdain for actual facts and knowledge.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

AURAPTOR

Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:15 PM

Can't dismiss the message, so you attack the messenger.
Classic Left wing tactic

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

BYTEMITE

Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:20 PM

Just being a scientist in general is all you need to be offended by an "incontrovertible" claim.

If it's incontrovertible, it's not science - science is based on study and observation, which is based on questions.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Thursday, September 15, 2011 3:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Just being a scientist in general is all you need to be offended by an "incontrovertible" claim.

If it's incontrovertible, it's not science - science is based on study and observation, which is based on questions.

The article Rap quoted makes the same point. There was argument before about that very single word. Change that SINGLE WORD and the conclusion still has plenty of evidence- hot spells, melting polar ice caps, extreme hurricanes, droughts, brush fires burning down Texas-- all suggestive of the conclusion, if not proof.

And an item I caught yesterday over on CNN.com--

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/14/king-crabs-invade-a
ntarctica/?hpt=hp_bn2

The king crabs, from ALASKA, are migrating to the SOUTH POLE, which was supposed to be impossible, and eating everything in sight along the way. People in the know are saying it's because of global warming.

I think it might have been because they got scared of Sig Hansen from Deadliest Catch, and left town. Maybe next season the Deadliest Catch
crazy men oughtta move South-- way South.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, September 15, 2011 4:13 PM

Sure. It's just one word, though it's enough to annoy anyone who actually works in the field. It's become political enough that if you measure or calculate a global temperature consistent with the scientific consensus, you must have an agenda. If you find there's been warming but not at the same rate as the scientific consensus or as hot, you're biased enough that the work has no scientific merit and you and anyone who made the mistake of associating with you are disgraced.

It's just a little extreme, and I can't help but feel like neutrality has been compromised.

As for your comment about the crabs, you didn't read the whole article - they're a related southern hemisphere species, the population in question was based off of New Zealand and migrated to Antarctica.

TWO

Thursday, September 15, 2011 4:34 PM

When should we NOT trust Dr. Ivar Giaever, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics? Another respected Nobel-prizewinning physicist was also unworthy of trust, from an article that came out the day Giaever resigned:

Quote:
I am a strong believer that good reasons, arguments, and evidence are what matter, not credentials. So the short answer to “when should we trust an expert simply because they are an expert?” is “never.” We should always ask for reasons before we place trust. Hannes Alfvén was a respected Nobel-prizewinning physicist; but his ideas about cosmology were completely loopy, and there was no reason for anyone to trust them. An interested outsider might verify that essentially no working cosmologists bought into his model. - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/09/13/trusting-e
xperts/

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

ANTHONYT

Thursday, September 15, 2011 4:43 PM

"There was argument before about that very single word. Change that SINGLE WORD"

Hello,

I think that single words can sometimes change everything. Language in scientific literature is usually chosen with great attention to meaning, and it does a great service to the community to remind them of that which James Bond has long known.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Thursday, September 15, 2011 4:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

As for your comment about the crabs, you didn't read the whole article - they're a related southern hemisphere species, the population in question was based off of New Zealand and migrated to Antarctica.

You're right, I didn't read the whole thing. AW, DAMN, I'm disappointed-- ruined a perfectly good joke.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, September 15, 2011 5:03 PM

It's okay. They ARE migrating. It's just that a species migrating away from rising temperatures is not going to go from temperate/sub-arctic waters to cross the equator because that would mean going through tropical waters.

My whole point is just that scientists got to be careful what they say and to try to not make this political. I think something's happening, but I think it's just as important that scientists do not exaggerate or mislead about their claims or their findings, because then they lose credibility. Same with saying that something is incontrovertible - that loses credibility.

The same of course goes for journalists. While an interesting article, I might argue that the way it was phrased and edited was intended to be misleading. Journalists will of course sensationalize, scientists should not ever sensationalize.

Crabs migrating away from Alaska to Antarctica would be an incredible and alarming story. The actual situation is extreme enough that crabs are migrating from New Zealand, but not so extreme they're migrating south from Alaska.

KWICKO

Friday, September 16, 2011 1:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors."

And that makes him an expert in climate science .... HOW again? It's like asking your dentist to work on your car - because he's a dentist and should know!

Now that I think about it, this seems to indicate Rap's reverence for 'authorities' (as long as they agree with him) and disdain for actual facts and knowledge.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

Apparently Rap didn't like your message (that this guy isn't a climate scientist in any sense of the word), so he needed to attack you for pointing it out.

Odd that he considers himself a lefty now, though. ;)

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

AURAPTOR

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:28 AM

Doesn't matter that he's not a climate scientist in the least. His argument was on the shoddy science which is being promoted as 'incontrovertible'. It's poor science, and he's absolutely right.

And I 'attacked' no one.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

1KIKI

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Just being a scientist in general is all you need to be offended by an "incontrovertible" claim.

If it's incontrovertible, it's not science - science is based on study and observation, which is based on questions.

AHEM!

If you read the article you will find that he's ok with it being a FACT that global warming is false. He himself has a website claiming it's a FACT that it's false. He's NOT taking a 'wait and see, the data will bear it out' approach.

It seems the only 'facts' he objects to are the ones he has already decided against. ie - he is operating on beliefs, not scientific skepticism.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:35 AM

In this case, I believe

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DumbassHasAPoint

Unless you disagree with the scientific method. Incontrovertible is still something you should never claim in relation to research.

Also, gesundheit.

SIGNYM

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:36 AM

King crabs.

Nonetheless, Byte, they are swarming over areas they have not lived in for millenia. Speaking of ignoring evidence in favor of mistakes.

AURAPTOR

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:37 AM

wow. The logistical contortions and gymnastics you AGW zealots go through to deny reality.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

SIGNYM

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:38 AM

Quote:
It's poor science, and he's absolutely right.

And rappy would know this... how? Because he understands the scientific method? Because he's all about the facts? Because he has a shred of logic?

Yanno, the fact that this comes from someone who has complete disdain for evidence makes this statement nothing more than a joke.

1KIKI

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:39 AM

"It's poor science, and he's absolutely right."

Except he's a proponent of equally poor science in the other direction. Do you dismiss HIS poor science as well, based on it being poor science?

I thought not.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:40 AM

Nice catch Sig, I didn't make that point myself. At all. To NOBC, explaining how it's still significant that they are migrating from New Zealand, but that we have to be careful about sensationalism.

We were arguing against the concept of neutrality and skepticism in science, I believe? You're making a good showing for the opposition.

ANTHONYT

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:43 AM

Hello,

I think the fellow might be wrong about everything in the wide world, down to the color of the sky and the matter of water being wet...

and it makes his specific criticism in this instance no less valid.

There is a terrible tendency, when a mistake is pointed out, to point out all the mistakes the other guy has made.

As though some quantity of wrongness on the part of the accuser somehow rights the wrong of the accused.

He may be hypocritical, he may be a fool, he may be a bastard.

But he's not wrong about *this one thing.*

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:49 AM

Exactly, Anthony. I disagree with the man about his personal stance on climate change, and he is a hypocrite for being unscrutinizing of his own beliefs. But he's absolutely right that none of the research is incontrovertible, or that we couldn't and shouldn't continue to refine the models, measurements, and calculations or continue to study the issue.

1KIKI

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:53 AM

"I think the fellow .."

By that, do you mean Rap?

The use of the word 'incontrovertible' is rare in science, but not unheard of. For example, it is incontrovertible that gravity is a force of attraction between two masses. If I measure the temperature of ice and the temperature of boiling water in degrees Celcius, it is incontrovertible that ice is colder than boiling water. By all measurements taken and all observations made - average sea temperature, average land temperature, glaciers in retreat and permafrost melting globally, average air temperature, temperature-related changes in biomes, global ice core data, it is incontrovertible that the earth is warmer than before. It is a matter of measurement and data.

And, btw, that is all that is claimed as being incontrovertible. Not necessarily that it's man made, not even that it's due to CO2 - just that the earth IS warmer.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

SIGNYM

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:59 AM

BYTE: I skim posts, I did not read to the bottom of yours. Sorry for jumping the gun.

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:04 AM

Gravity is incontrovertible since it's a law... To a degree. Some have wondered if the relativistic modifications to gravity are quite right, as you might be able to recalculate them in a way that doesn't require dark matter and dark energy in the universe.

Your other examples, however, are not.

-If I measure the temperature of ice and the temperature of boiling water

Low temperature vacuum.

-it is incontrovertible that the earth is warmer than before. It is a matter of measurement and data.

But not the exact numbers or difference, which may vary depending on measurements used, methods of calculating average global temperature from the large amounts of raw data, differences between the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere and so on. You might be able to replicate the results with one set of data, but I suspect with other sets of data there might be minute differences, which would compound in the end results. That, unfortunately, is a downfall of statistics.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
To NOBC, explaining how it's still significant that they are migrating from New Zealand, but that we have to be careful about sensationalism.

We were arguing against the concept of neutrality and skepticism in science, I believe? You're making a good showing for the opposition.

Not sure what you mean, exactly. I agree: it's still significant, and we do have to be careful about sensationalism.
I WAS mostly making a joke about the ALASKA to the SOUTH POLE thing, and I WAS wrong about that fact.
I do agree about neutrality in science- results should be testable by repeated experiments by neutral parties.
By that standard, climate science cannot be science, can it? We ain't got a test tube big enough, and ain't got enough years to test it.

But as I wrote above there somewhere, there is a lot of observable evidence that suggests that the theory is correct. It seems from the article that the crab migration was one of the things predicted about global warming-- now it seems to have come true, validating the prediction. Validating the prediction is therefore evidence suggesting that the theory is good. Not PROOF, but more evidence suggesting that it's valid.

As far as skepticism goes, yeah, some is good: a goodly number of scientists have questioned accepted theory, only to be proven correct, and thereby bringing new insights.

I do have considerable doubts about the neutrality and skepticism of some of the folks opposing global warming theory-- too many of them COULD BE shills of folks who already have a fog in the fight.

AURAPTOR

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
It's poor science, and he's absolutely right.
And rappy would know this... how? Because he understands the scientific method? Because he's all about the facts? Because he has a shred of logic?

Yanno, the fact that this comes from someone who has complete disdain for evidence makes this statement nothing more than a joke.

I'm all about facts and logic and evidence. Have been for a long time. You're the joke for even suggesting that I have any disdain for such things, and are only showing your complete and total ignorance on such matters yourself.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

AURAPTOR

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"It's poor science, and he's absolutely right."

Except he's a proponent of equally poor science in the other direction. Do you dismiss HIS poor science as well, based on it being poor science?

He has no 'poor science', in the least. He's absolutely right. You not liking to hear the truth does not make it any less valid.

Deal w/ it.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

1KIKI

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:18 AM

"exact numbers"

Uhm - do I need to say the earth is overall 0.572 C warmer not 0.773 C warmer in order to say it is warmer? Really? You are going to hang your argument on minute differences in amount of 'warmer' because slightly more warmer or slightly less warmer somehow nullifies 'warmer'?

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:18 AM

I've been snippy all week.

I actually do think there's something to climate change what with the storm intensity thing, I'm just trying to avoid getting into the political side.

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:21 AM

Quote:
Uhm - do I need to say the earth is overall 0.572 C warmer not 0.773 C warmer in order to say it is warmer? Really? You are going to hang your argument on minute differences in amount of 'warmer' because slightly more warmer or slightly less warmer somehow nullifies 'warmer'?

If we believe in climate change, then I believe we would both say that decimals can make something of a difference, wouldn't we?

Data and results are not and should not ever be incontrovertible, and we must be willing to refine, not just accept what's already been done. Otherwise our understanding will remain incomplete. Just like gravity and dark matter. We can't be afraid to question.

I didn't say nullifies warmer, by the way. Argue with ME, not what you want me to say. I'm not any kind of denier.

1KIKI

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:25 AM

"Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter." http://icecap.us/

In other words, he's not waiting for facts - his mind is made up.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:26 AM

That wasn't directed at you NOBC. Sig thought I said something I didn't, and I was being bitchy about it.

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:28 AM

Sure, 1kiki, but you aren't considering the point Anthony and I made, that he can be wrong about everything else, he can even be clueless about the field (and he seems to be, as it isn't his field at all). But he can still have a point about science not being incontrovertible.

1KIKI

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:34 AM

"Data and results are not and should not ever be incontrovertible ..."

Unless they are proved wrong, measurements and data tend to stand. The theories behind them may undergo radical revision based on small differences in measured properties.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

1KIKI

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:37 AM

"But he can still have a point about science not being incontrovertible."

But no one is saying 'science' is incontrovertible. Or that global warming being man made is incontrovertible. Or even that it being due to CO2 is incontrovertible. The only claim made is that the data show that the earth is incontrovertibly warmer than before. Just like boiling water is incontrovertibly warmer than ice.

The earth is warmer. Warmer than when glaciers around the globe came into being. Warmer than when the boreal forests were established. Warmer than when the permafrost first froze. Warmer than when people first started looking for the 'northwest passage' through Arctic ice. Warmer than when king crabs got isolated from the Antarctic. Warmer.

Exactly where ... how much ... since when ... how quickly ... due to what ... these are all important questions that can only be answered by painstakingly accounting for all those small discrepancies. But the fact of warmer - well, that is a fact.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

ANTHONYT

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:45 AM

"Unless they are proved wrong"

Hello,

Incontrovertible things cannot be proved wrong. That's what incontrovertible means.

Unquestionable, irrefutable.

So if there's an unless... if there's any unless...

Speaking of which...

I remember reading once that water can boil and freeze simultaneously. Crazy stuff.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:48 AM

"Unless they are proved wrong, measurements and data tend to stand."

Okay, perhaps conclusions is the better word. Standing on the shoulders of giants and whatnot. But in some cases you can still remeasure, which can be important for verification.

"The only claim made is that the data show that the earth is incontrovertibly warmer than before. Just like boiling water is incontrovertibly warmer than ice. "

Erg, this is hard because I agree with the sentiment, but I can't agree with the incontrovertible thing...

And no, boiling water is not always warmer than ice, that's not a very good analogy.

"The earth is warmer. Warmer than when glaciers around the globe came into being. Warmer than when the boreal forests were established. Warmer than when the permafrost first froze. Warmer than when people first started looking for the 'northwest passage' through Arctic ice. Warmer than when king crabs got isolated from the Antarctic. Warmer."

And here you're talking about some things that actually happened well before humans and agriculture started affecting things. I mean, again, I agree with the sentiment, it's just committing unquestionably to an idea is a good way to end up burned if it turns out not quite right or in need of refinement for better understanding. I have my opinion of what's going on, but my policy is to remain neutral, and propose solutions that work no matter the actual situation.

1KIKI

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:54 AM

"Unless they are proved wrong"

There is always a small chance - no matter how infinitesimally small - that something will fall away from urth. That boiling water will get hotter while the ice cube in it will get colder. That all the temperature measurements will be found to be wrong because the statistical errors found in all measurements just all happen to line up in the same direction - every time. Not a really big chance, mind you. Do you want to hang your skepticism on that?

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:59 AM

>_>

Yes. *shrug* There's no other way to do it, if you're going to do science.

ANTHONYT

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:59 AM

"Do you want to hang your skepticism on that?"

Hello,

My skepticism? We are talking about the word incontrovertible.

Which is, as I understand it, meaningless in the scientific realm where possibilities abound like faerie folk in an Irish glade.

Why ruin something so beautiful as infinite possibility?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

1KIKI

Friday, September 16, 2011 4:18 AM

"There's no other way to do it, if you're going to do science."

"Why ruin something so beautiful as infinite possibility?"

Then why take measurements at all? Why create and test theories? Why do science, if the universe is subject to your big mental 'whatEVER it's all MEANINGLESS' shrug?

If you claim to be interested in science, at a certain point the possibilities must yield to observation and measurement, to prediction and testing, to old theories and new revolutionary ideas. But simply dismissing all measurement, all observation, all data as meaningless is not scientific skepticism. And it's really, REALLY childish and kind of stupid.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

ANTHONYT

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"There's no other way to do it, if you're going to do science."

"Why ruin something so beautiful as infinite possibility?"

Then why take measurements at all? Why create and test theories? Why do science, if the universe is subject to your big mental 'whatEVER it's all MEANINGLESS' shrug?

If you claim to be interested in science, at a certain point the possibilities must yield to observation and measurement, to prediction and testing, to old theories and new revolutionary ideas. But simply dismissing all measurement, all observation, all data as meaningless is not scientific skepticism. And it's really, REALLY childish and kind of stupid.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

Hello,

How silly. We must take actions based on the best information available to us at any given time.

Leaving oneself open is not akin to disbelieving the totality of existence.

It is merely akin to acknowledging that you may not know the totality of existence.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

1KIKI

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:56 AM

"My skepticism? We are talking about the word incontrovertible.
Which is, as I understand it, meaningless in the scientific realm where possibilities abound like faerie folk in an Irish glade.
Why ruin something so beautiful as infinite possibility?"

We can ALWAYS debate the nature of reality. Do I exist? Does the world? Or is this my dream, or yours? Or someone else's? Is there such a thing as cause and effect or merely the appearance of before and after? Is nature probabilistic or mechanistic?

But to do science - REAL science, not your faerie version - we have to assume that we can derive meaningful information from the world. That if we measure something often enough and get the same result, it reflects a property of the world.

Unless you want to dismiss the entire notion of reality and the process of science, then yes, it is incontrovertible that the earth is warmer.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

AURAPTOR

Friday, September 16, 2011 11:21 AM

Quote:
Unless you want to dismiss the entire notion of reality and the process of science, then yes, it is incontrovertible that the earth is warmer.

That the Earth warms and cools over it's 4. something billion yr old history, isn't being dismissed by anyone.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

KWICKO

Friday, September 16, 2011 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"It's poor science, and he's absolutely right."

Except he's a proponent of equally poor science in the other direction. Do you dismiss HIS poor science as well, based on it being poor science?

He has no 'poor science', in the least. He's absolutely right. You not liking to hear the truth does not make it any less valid.

Deal w/ it.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Would you say his "facts" are "incontrovertible"?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

ANTHONYT

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:39 PM

"But to do science - REAL science, not your faerie version"

Hello,

In Real Science, Nothing is incontrovertible. Scientists simply make the best decisions they can based on the best information available. But someday, some radical discovery may always come to the fore that proves the best information available to have been incorrect or incorrectly interpreted.

"Anything can happen, child. Anything can be."
-Shel Silverstein

That is the wonder of science. Not magic, nor even faeries, really. For a belief based in faith can never be proven wrong, but a belief based in science can be. Always. All you need is new, better data- or a better way of interpreting it.

Is it my fault if I find that to be poetic and beautiful?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

SIGNYM

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:00 PM

Actually, there is a part of science that is incontrovertible and that are definitions.

ANTHONYT

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, there is a part of science that is incontrovertible and that are definitions.

Hello,

Tell us about it.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

1KIKI

Friday, September 16, 2011 4:36 PM

Damn - there's a word for that and I don't remember it. But it's what SignyM is referring to ...

"Scientists simply make the best decisions they can based on the best information available."

You are talking about theories. I am talking about data.

Temperature is a number you get when performing a measurement by surrogate property - expanding volume (liquid in glass thermometer), current (thermocouple), radiation (infrared), and several other techniques, using defined procedures and calibrated against defined setpoints based on physical constants and given arbitrary numbers (scale). As such, it is - by definition - a definition. It's one of those things you can't debate unless you want to debate known physical constants and the nature of reality ... You really can't go back and say - nuhh unnhhh! - MY temperature measurement is different from YOUR temperature measurement and YOURS is wrong! So I'M going to say YOUR numbers might change!

The same is true of observational data - trees dying, glaciers melting, new species moving in while old species disappear etc. Unless you want to debate the nature of reality ... this may be all a dream and therefore not real and the reality you see might not be the reality I see or the reality that will exist tomorrow (or some other argument) - you can't argue away the fact of observation.

These are data. The DATA IS INCONTROVERTIBLE - THE EARTH IS WARMER.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NIKI2

Friday, September 16, 2011 4:59 PM

Fascinating discussion, shows me how smart and thoughtful most of you are. I'm impressed. What the scientist is saying is "incontrovertable" is that the world is warmer than it was before, and that, to me, scientific measurements are showing that to be true. Unless there is some way in which 7 is a smaller number than 2 is possible, as we measure it, to simplify it. Certainly science may find a way down the line to prove that false, so it isn't incontrovertable, but there are some things which I believe will never be "proven" wrong, so while I don't like the word used in the context of science (which is always evolving), I don't have that much difficulty with the claim.

As far as the original article, when I read it I saw it as something worded to convince of one thing, while the actual facts of the matter are different than the conclusions pushed. The conclusion pushed seems clearly to highlight that someone in authority is protesting a statement of the truth of man-made climate change, when that is not what he actually DID. A casual reader might see this as "proof" that someone in authority has stated that man-made climate change is false, and that's what I believe it was worded to indicate. When I got to the bottom and saw it was from FauxNews, it all fell into place. They chose someone who would be viewed as reputable, from the "Nobel Prize winning" bit and the fact that he's a scientist, then twisted his protest to cast doubt on something which a) he was not protesting, and b) he has such a strong reason not to believe in that he's gone to considerable lengths to align himself with the belief it is not. That makes him prejudiced, in my view, and his conclusions questionable. He appears to be more someone who has already made up his mind and has an investment in being right, from having a website to argue against it to resigning from a scientific body over it.

The other thing I noticed was how Raptor's posts were completely at odds with the debate being held; except for his last post, he offered nothing but snarks and visceral language which was intended to elicit responses. Everyone else was debating science and language; he was just popping in to snark about liberals and call himself "fair and balanced". It reminded me yet again how irrelevant he is to any serious discussion.

The third thing that struck me is that science, being a evolving thing, and unable to prove or disprove anything to the point where everyone will agree with it, means that we can debate endlessly just about anything. This means that man-made climate chance can never be completely agreed upon. Ergo, it can never conclusively be used as a reason to do anything about it. Ergo, as humans, we will never make a sincere effort to combat it, we'll just go on arguing about it, which means we are doomed if it is real. It's a failing of human nature which leaves loopholes for those who want nothing done to use effectively to combat any effort to take any action.

Given we don't need man-made climate change as a reason to try and mitigate man's continued toxification of our environment, I wish less attention could be paid to the possibility and more attention paid to reversing the myriad negative effects on us and our environment, of which (proven absolutely, universally true or not) we have plenty of examples to convince us. There are too many ways we are willing to engage in doubt of negative effects, or absolve ourselves of blame for same, which can be used to keep us from taking action, and those who have an investment in keeping us from taking action know how to keep that debating going for their own profits.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
sign

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:05 PM

I guess the problem we're running into here is that I view all facts as subjective, and facts are correct until proven wrong. As such, I tend to think there's always an inherent uncertainty about everything.

Which is why I'm simply unable to agree that anything is incontrovertible, including data or well-supported scientific conclusions, even if I might agree with the sentiment that those conclusions are true.

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:11 PM

Quote:
The third thing that struck me is that science, being a evolving thing, and unable to prove or disprove anything to the point where everyone will agree with it, means that we can debate endlessly just about anything. This means that man-made climate chance can never be completely agreed upon. Ergo, it can never conclusively be used as a reason to do anything about it. Ergo, as humans, we will never make a sincere effort to combat it, we'll just go on arguing about it, which means we are doomed if it is real. It's a failing of human nature which leaves loopholes for those who want nothing done to use effectively to combat any effort to take any action.

Oh, that might not happen. Science may not be absolute, but science and policy are by necessity two different things, and policy is determined by compromise. Eventually if enough people decide, maybe if not to do something directly about climate change, they might be willing to do alter personal habits to reduce their own personal ecological impact for different reasons. Which would be a win for everyone whether they believe in climate change or not.

NIKI2

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:20 PM

I also googled for the actual text, given the "..." in the posted article. The actual text was revised to include

Quote:
The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling. However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century. (Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html), to me, they were correct in clarifying the statement. Nonetheless, I disagree with scientists stating "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring" insofar as it is within text which begins "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." Saying the EVIDENCE (of warming) is incontrovertible is one thing; beginning the treatise the way they did and following "incontrovertible" with "global warming is occurring" evidences for me very close to a clear statement that global warming is man made. That's not what it says, but that's what it's intended to be read as. That makes their statements as biased as the dissenting scientist's in my view.

The statement is worded in such a way as to use the "fact" of warming to extrapolate it being man made, and uses sentences such as "Greenhouse gas emissions are changing", which is stated as fact, rather than "greenhouse gas emissions appear to be changing". In that respect, the APS is definitely unscientific.

The wording is cute, but has some validity:
Quote:
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms.
"Enhanced effort to understand" is valid, providing technological options is an assumption that it is man made.

I can see why someone who didn't believe climate change is man made would be angered by the statement. I also think the scientist in question goes beyond dissent in his disagreement. Both the statement by the scientists in favor of believing it is man made and the article about him resigning over it are propanganda, in their ways.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NIKI2

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:24 PM

Byte, agreed (your second post). But people doing so on an individual basis would never have sufficient effect, in my opinion, to counteract the volume of what is being done with negative consequences. There is too much power pushing for no change, it would take at LEAST a nationwide effort to counter the myriad ways in which our environment is changing which we can be relatively certain industry, etc., are causing. As long as "scientists" debate, there is fodder for those against change to use. They're already winning, on this issue, given fewer people believe climate change is man made than did before. They've cast enough doubt, carefully worded (and I believe bought off enough "scientists") to keep the debate going. While we debate, little or nothing gets actually DONE.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

1KIKI

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:28 PM

"unable to prove or disprove anything to the point where everyone will agree with it"

So, do we use the Polish veto to determine science? Do we put it up to a vote and if one person disagrees that the earth is a globe we have to put that fact in our 'unproven theory' bin?

Wow.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

1KIKI

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:46 PM

Oh, btw - I also read the complete statement. I thought there was an deplorable level of weasel-wording and implication. That said, the 'incontrovertible' statement itself was limited. And that is the only statement I am defending.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

THEHAPPYTRADER

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:49 PM

Just adding my 2 cents, which ain't exactly 'inconvertible' but I suspect the real argument for most folk is whether or not the climate change is the problem we think it is and if our CO2 emissions are really the cause. That would be my argument anyway.

It's my understanding we have some evidence of a 'Medieval Climatic Anomaly' from around 950–1250 and much evidence of a 'Little Ice Age' that occurred from around 1550-1850. I think it's evident that the Earth's climate has and will change, but how much of that is the fault of our CO2 emissions? Is it really more closely linked to destruction of forest and the like or is it something that's just going to happen anyway, with or without our help?

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:06 PM

Quote:
Both the statement by the scientists in favor of believing it is man made and the article about him resigning over it are propanganda, in their ways.

Agreed. This is why I lament the direction the discussion has gone. It's "We're all gonna die!" and "We'll be fine. Drill drill drill!" Meanwhile big oil and energy plays both sides to the hilt and profits obscenely, with built in loopholes to any legislation that might be passed to prevent us all from going over a cliff.

No discussion, in my experience, can lead only to stagnation and corruption. It never leads to better understanding of anything or improvement of conditions.

NIKI2

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:13 PM

Kiki:

Quote:
Do we put it up to a vote and if one person disagrees that the earth is a globe we have to put that fact in our 'unproven theory' bin?

No, my point was that until enough of THOSE IN POWER are convinced there's a problem, little or nothing will be done. It's happening right now, and will probably go on happening until (if it's true), it's too late to reverse the effects. I believe we should continue to investigate, but in the mean time, given we have what I believe is enough evidence of the negative impacts of the current situation (whether it's causing climate change or not), we should be doing something about it rather than waiting for a consensus that something should be done.

Could you clarify

Quote:
No discussion, in my experience, can lead only to stagnation and corruption. It never leads to better understanding of anything or improvement of conditions.

for me, please? The two sentences seem to be a dichotomy, the way they read.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

BYTEMITE

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:18 PM

Quote:

Just adding my 2 cents, which ain't exactly 'inconvertible' but I suspect the real argument for most folk is whether or not the climate change is the problem we think it is and if our CO2 emissions are really the cause. That would be my argument anyway.

It's my understanding we have some evidence of a 'Medieval Climatic Anomaly' from around 950–1250 and much evidence of a 'Little Ice Age' that occurred from around 1550-1850. I think it's evident that the Earth's climate has and will change, but how much of that is the fault of our CO2 emissions? Is it really more closely linked to destruction of forest and the like or is it something that's just going to happen anyway, with or without our help?

Actually the things you cite that would make it appear all the recent climate change is natural convince me that humankind has had some influence.

The Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a period of very warm temperatures that led to the proliferation of the bubonic plague.

The Little Ice Age was due to something called the Maunder Minimum, which relates to cyclical variations in solar output.

But ultimately, the Climactic Anomaly was the outlier, while the Little Ice Age was a tiny taste of what the earth SHOULD have been like. According to ice age cycles relating to earth solar orbital periods that fluctuate over 20,000 years, every ten thousand years there should be a new ice age. Ten thousand years ago, something stopped the new ice age from occurring. Ten thousand years ago, humans discovered of slash and burn agriculture and the cultivation of rice paddies.

I do not believe these are unrelated.

So I see the Little Ice Age as was what should have actually be the peak of the last ten thousand years that should have been a MAJOR Ice Age period and wasn't. For a brief while, nature made a resurgence over the influence of man and expressed itself as it should.

But then, instead of deepening into a true Ice Age... The industrial revolution happened, and broke the Little Ice Age. You'll notice how well the timeline corresponds to that.

NIKI2

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:20 PM

Happy, my point was that we have enough evidence that what we are doing now is bad for the planet that, tho' the investigation and debate of climate change should probably go on, we should be taking action to reverse the negative effects we pretty much KNOW are happening in the meantime. If we just go on debating whether climate change is natural or man made, what we're doing to cause it if it IS man made, before acting, it will probably be too late (which it already may be anyway).

I'm not really up for whether climate change is man made or not, to me it's irrelevant for the most part. We already know our actions are having massive negative effects globally in one form or another, those should be important enough to change.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

KWICKO

Saturday, September 17, 2011 12:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Unless they are proved wrong"

There is always a small chance - no matter how infinitesimally small - that something will fall away from urth. That boiling water will get hotter while the ice cube in it will get colder. That all the temperature measurements will be found to be wrong because the statistical errors found in all measurements just all happen to line up in the same direction - every time. Not a really big chance, mind you. Do you want to hang your skepticism on that?

Thing is, Kiki, that climate change deniers *DO* want to hang their skepticism on the 1-in-a-million chance that they're right. These are the same kinds of people who, if you pointed at an asteroid on a direct course to impact Earth and wipe out 95% of life on the planet and with a 99.999% certainty of such a hit, would still say "You will NOT raise my taxes one single penny as long as there's even the slightest chance this asteroid won't hit us!"

This is how wedded they are to their ideology.

Now, if we were to say that MUSLIMS are responsible for global climate change, Rappy and his tea-bagging no-nothings would be clamoring for the government to hurry up and do something about it!

As Rappy points out, this guy quit his job over the use of the word "incontrovertible". And Rappy says that this guy's claims are "absolutely right", which is no different than claiming that his own claims are "incontrovertible".

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

RIONAEIRE

Monday, September 19, 2011 3:10 AM

I agree that whether people are causing, or contributing to, climate change isn't the main importance, either way we need to curb our negative effect on the earth so we can keep living on it successfully and it keeps giving us what we need.

The main thing I got from this conversation is that in some ways I'm glad there aren't any faeries because when something is pretend we can imagine it however we like, I can imagine them my way, Byte and Frem can imagine them their way and so on. But I do wish such things were real. I guess I'm torn. Oh well my musings aren't going to change anything, but I can still wish and imagine anyways.

That has nothing to do with incontrovertability, but that's what I got from this discussion nonetheless.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

1KIKI

Monday, September 19, 2011 3:16 AM

"Now, if we were to say that MUSLIMS are responsible for global climate change ..."

That is effin' BRILLIANT! Plus it made me lol.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

BYTEMITE

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:07 PM

Quote:
As Rappy points out, this guy quit his job over the use of the word "incontrovertible". And Rappy says that this guy's claims are "absolutely right", which is no different than claiming that his own claims are "incontrovertible".

Actually, I was the one who used the phrase "absolutely right."

KWICKO

Monday, September 19, 2011 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
As Rappy points out, this guy quit his job over the use of the word "incontrovertible". And Rappy says that this guy's claims are "absolutely right", which is no different than claiming that his own claims are "incontrovertible".

Actually, I was the one who used the phrase "absolutely right."

You weren't the only one using that phrase. Rappy used it here, which is what I responded to:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"It's poor science, and he's absolutely right."

Except he's a proponent of equally poor science in the other direction. Do you dismiss HIS poor science as well, based on it being poor science?

He has no 'poor science', in the least. He's absolutely right. You not liking to hear the truth does not make it any less valid.

Deal w/ it.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

BYTEMITE

Monday, September 19, 2011 6:34 PM

Ah. In that case I'm not sure if any of your objections apply to me still, so I'll just wander around the back of the room in a befuddled haze.

...Where IS that rabbit...?