Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 9 years ago

Why is this nobel prize winning physicist condemning an alarmist organization on climate change?

9 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Occasionally an odd Nobel Prize winner goes off his rocker, decades later when he is in his 80s or 90s. Or becomes so arrogant or stubborn by then that he shoots his mouth off about a field other than his own, and one which he does not understand very well. 200 Nobel Prize winners from around the world are not all in a conspiracy, however.

    U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

    “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

    “Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

    “The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

  • 9 years ago

    The American Physical Society is hardly an "alarmist" organization--it is the most important organization of professional physicists in the world. It has about 48000 members, the vast majority of which agree with the society's stance on anthropogenic global warming. Ivar Giaver won his prize for quantum tunneling in superconductors--an area of physics that is almost completely irrelevant to climate science.

    That he resigned from APS I don't find all that exciting or controversial. Many older members let their membership lapse anyway. I doubt that he is very active in research at this point. I did a literature search in Web of Science and INSPEC for him and only found a single entry from 1975.

    Here are some questions for you: Had you ever heard of Giaver before he took this stance? Do you turn to him for expert opinions on other subjects? Do you have the faintest idea what quantum tunneling in superconductors is, and if you do, why do you think this would give him an expert opinion on climate science?

    Source(s): I'm a climate scientist, physicist and member of the American Physical Society.
  • arai
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    the yank actual Society is not often an "alarmist" employer--this is the main serious employer of expert physicists in the international. It has approximately 48000 participants, nearly all of which accept as true with the society's stance on anthropogenic international warming. Ivar Giaver gained his prize for quantum tunneling in superconductors--a community of physics it somewhat is virtually thoroughly beside the point to climate technological information. That he resigned from APS i do no longer discover all that thrilling or debatable. Many older participants permit their club lapse besides. I doubt that he's amazingly lively in analyze at this factor. I did a literature seek in internet of technological information and INSPEC for him and in common terms stumbled on a single get right of entry to from 1975. listed right here are some questions for you: Had you ever heard of Giaver in the previous he took this stance? Do you turn to him for expert comments on different subjects? Do you have the faintest theory what quantum tunneling in superconductors is, and in case you do, why do you think of this would provide him an expert opinion on climate technological information?

  • Trevor
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    The reasons he resigned are as stated in his letter to the APS (see Dave H’s answer).

    Whether his reasoning is correct is questionable.

    Whilst Professor Giaever is clearly a highly intelligent person and an expert in his given field, he certainly isn’t a climate scientist. His background, career and expertise lie in mechanical engineering.

    It’s quite clear from the points he mentioned in his letter that he has a very limited understanding of the climate – not that there’s anything wrong with this. In his letter he states that he believes the temperature has been amazingly stable in the last 150 years whereas in reality, there is no known period in the whole of history where the temperature has changed so rapidly. Even at the end of an ‘ice-age’ the warming is many times slower.

    I’m a climate scientist myself, it’s a subject I know a lot about but I don’t know the first thing about mechanical engineering. So why, as a mechanical engineer, should Prof Giaever know anything about the climate. Why would anybody expect that he should?

    It’s shame that he has chosen to resign from the APS, they obviously held him in very high regard as they deemed it appropriate to bestow a Fellowship upon him, I’m sure both he, as a person, and his contribution to the Society will be greatly missed.

    However, he clearly feels very strongly about the issue of global warming, though it’s apparent he doesn’t understand it, and he’s chosen to resign as a result.

    Sorry this isn’t the answer you wanted to hear. I know you’re wanting someone to agree with you.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • DaveH
    Lv 5
    9 years ago

    You don't need to ask us... here's what he wrote.

    "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"

  • Moe
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    The alarmist talking points have been set in stone. If you disagree you are a denier, paid off, not a climate scientist, or a stupid climate scientist.

    Edit: thanks dook I left one out, their old.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    The oil industry paid him off.

  • 9 years ago

    Beacuse he is correct and it is the right thing to do.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    tldr. global warming is a lie

    Source(s): madden nfl 12
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.