• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever Quits APS over Stand on Global Warming

B

BladeVenom

Lifer
The blind faith of the APS in Global Warming, and that they will not even allow debate on it, has caused another prominent scientist to quit.

"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."

"Moreover, global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,"
Click to expand...
-- http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/214...x-dissent-nobel-prize-winner-physicist-re.htm

Reminds me of Harold Lewis, the Professor of Physics at the University of California, who quit last year who said, "Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life."
 
It was my understanding that he quit over the use of the word "incontrovertible", not that he denies climate change is occurring.

Not a huge story imho.
 
Some amount of scientists\physicists, etc will always disagree in the hopes they're proven right. More credit & money for them if they are.
 
Most of my professors in physics classes believe the problem too complex to predict any future outcome.

Just look at the weather for example. We can only forcast out so far with any sort of accuracy even with today's math and computer science.

How could we possibly know what is going to happen with any sort of accuracy when you take into account the multitude of variables over long periods of time.

We can't tell for sure it will rain in two days yet people say they can predict the earth will warm in decades! This is illogical thinking.

A lot of variables are unkown as we do not yet understand fully the mechanisms of earth's dynamics internally or externally.

The earth's core is the most obvious unkown variable.
 
sarsipias1234 said:
Most of my professors in physics classes believe the problem too complex to predict any future outcome.

Just look at the weather for example. We can only forcast out so far with any sort of accuracy even with today's math and computer science.

How could we possibly know what is going to happen with any sort of accuracy when you take into account the multitude of variables over long periods of time.

We can't tell for sure it will rain in two days yet people say they can predict the earth will warm in decades! This is illogical thinking.

A lot of variables are unkown as we do not yet understand fully the mechanisms of earth's dynamics internally or externally.

The earth's core is the most obvious unkown variable.
Click to expand...
We aren't allowed to question it. I say this all the time, but since I'm not getting grant money to go do climate research no one will listen. There's evidence we have no clue what the fuck we're talking about because we haven't got a damn prediction right, we keep discovering new data points and there is a huge segment who refuses to acknowledge any dissenting opinion(the AGW kooks). Pathetic shit is some people on these forums actually championed the "consensus" while trying to tell us to believe scientists lols. nothing scientific about a consensus morons.
 
Albert Einstein saw this corruption of our Universities back in 1949.

Here is a quote from Why Socialism: http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals."
 
This "so many scientists support global warming for the money" argument doesn't even make any sense. Given all the financial interest in disproving/denying global warming scientists would certainly have access to far more study money by taking a negative stance.
 
ConstipatedVigilante said:
They are able to get more money if they say it has relevance to global warming. There is a conflict of interest between truth and funding.
Click to expand...

Well, let's get rid of all scientists, end all funding, they're all liars, so it's useless. There's not a thing we can do about the "conflict of interest".

How many innocent people have been denied the health benefits of smoking because of these asshole liars' corruption?

LuckyStrike.jpg


gra_bdoctor.jpg
 
Last edited:
woolfe9999 said:
Scientists get research money for everything they research. Why is it suspicious in the case of climate research but not any other area?
Click to expand...

well considering it's basically impossible to research without getting money, your first statement is a tautology.
 
The science behind global warming is not there. You can't take ~100 years of data and try to draw reasonable conclusions about the Earth's temperature. We simply don't know. It's a guess. If you look at huge time frames of the Earth you see that it is sometimes hot and sometimes cold. It's the equivalent of trying to calculate the average speed of a 20 mile race by only measuring 2 seconds at the end. With that said most people would rather be safe than sorry and start changing our behavior. I wish they would just say that instead of trying to force dogma (that word will work here) down our throat.
 
jackschmittusa said:
It was my understanding that he quit over the use of the word "incontrovertible", not that he denies climate change is occurring.

Not a huge story imho.
Click to expand...

You failed to even read the OP.

"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."
Click to expand...
 
Its funny I find politicians, lawyers, and hippies all think global warming is true, yet the PHD engineers who work for oil companies don't think its a problem we need to worry about. Who would you rather believe? Al Gore or PHD engineers and scientists?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top