Dr. Ivar Giaever, former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned yesterday as a Fellow from the American Physics Society over its ‘incontrovertible’ position on global warming. Giaever wrote in an email to APS’s executive director (via Climate Depot ): “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.” APS’s official position on global warming according to its website states: The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. 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. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. In later commentary on its website to clarify its position, APS writes: While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. APS, in it’s commentary, also acknowledges that “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 organization calls the evidence for global warming “compelling” but doesn’t retract it’s use of the word “incontrovertible.” Climate Depot goes on to note that Giaever isn’t the only scientist that has resigned from APS over global warming: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’ Giaever was one of 70 Nobel Prize winners to endorse Obama in 2008. But in 2009 he was one of 100 co-signers of a letter to the president questioning his stance on global warming. In 2010, Giaever was quoted by the New York Times as saying global warming “can’t be discussed, just like religion.”
Ivan Giaever in 1973.
Go here to read the rest:
Nobel Prize Winner Resigns Over an ‘Incontrovertible’ Stance on Global Warming
Twice in recent days, I've gotten into little back-and-forths with Joe Scarborough on Twitter , and my current argument probably needs more than 140 characters. First, a couple of nice things about Scarborough: He's a nice guy. His show is near-ideal for political junkies, a lot of great inside baseball and much less fluff than a lot of other shows. He is a gracious and well-informed host. Often he's surprisingly blunt about what he thinks about other programs and hosts on MSNBC, and let's face it, we find that awesome . His goal of a more polite and respectful public dialogue is completely worthwhile. Having said that . . . It seems like at least once per day on Twitter, Scarborough expresses some variation of surprise, irritation, and incredulity that he's been criticized by left-wing folks and right-wing folks in the same day. Now, I know where he's coming from. Hate mail used to drive me bonkers. Every once in a while, it still does. But the Internet has changed our culture; when I started in journalism, critics used to have to use a stamp, envelope, pen, or crayons and the occasional bit of DNA evidence to tell you what a terrible job you were doing.* Now you can wish a painful death upon me or any other voice in the public square with the touch of a button. This, we are constantly assured, is progress. I don't like this state of affairs, but it is what it is. The folks who practice this the most are well beyond our ability to change their behavior. Once, after writing an op-ed that mentioned a particularly infamous figure who had sent death threats to a blogger, the figure sent me a note thanking me for helping keep her in the news. Some folks who write harshly are just caught up in the moment, but others actually think and speak this way all the time, and feel no shame, remorse, or regret about how they choose to treat people. If we could somehow undo the technological revolution that enabled these people to communicate beyond earshot, the U.S. postal system, and their cats, our public discourse would probably be nicer, healthier, and more productive and civil. But nobody's turning off the Internet anytime soon, and there doesn't appear to be a way to put the genie back in the bottle. I think ignoring them is probably the best approach, but I'm open to suggestions. The end result is that Scarborough seems perpetually taken aback by vicious denunciations that are now sadly standard in our discourse, and many of his Tweets amount to a plea for us all to be nicer to each other and treat each other with respect. Now, Jesus Christ and Rodney King would agree with that message, but it's hard to see what those pleas accomplish. Those who are already respectful don't need to hear it, and those who aren't respectful don't seem inclined to change their behavior because Joe Scarborough is disappointed in them. (Search for #JoeNBCWisdom on Twitter to find folks parodying the host's well-meaning but obvious and often preachy messages.) Finally, when you're being criticized by both the Right and the Left, sometimes it's because you've found a sweet spot of compromise that irritates the fringes of both sides. Then again, sometimes it just means you're really, really wrong. * “Bah! You call this hate mail? Why, back in the day, cranks used to send bits of dried-up flowers! These kids today, they have no idea what it used to take to tell a writer he stinks. Why, they used to have to take the letter to the mailbox, in the snow, uphill both ways . . .” Jim Geraghty
Originally posted here:
Can You Believe I’m Being Harshly Criticized by Both Sides? Unthinkable!
