another physics nobel laureate quits the APS

[IanC]

while much more understated than Hal Lewis last year, this is pretty direct condemnation

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.’

he went on to say that it is OK to discuss the possible change in mass of a proton but not OK to discuss AGW theory. incontrovertable indeed

 

[ScienceRocks]

while much more understated than Hal Lewis last year, this is pretty direct condemnation

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.’

he went on to say that it is OK to discuss the possible change in mass of a proton but not OK to discuss AGW theory. incontrovertable indeed

I think his problem is he has a problem with the word incontrovertible....It is NOT science to think that something is 100 percent fact on a complex subject like global warming...Global warming is a theory that must be tested and looked at by the entire field of science and can be proven false. IT IS NOT A LAW.

Global warming theory is put forward to explain why the earth is warming currently, which they put forward Co2 and other green house gasses as the drivers for that warming. IT IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX as POSITIVES DRIVERS ARE ONLY A PART OF THE EQUATION...There are negative drivers pushing down on them, but what ever remains is the imbalance, which warms or cools the planet. The big time scientist within the field are trying to figure how the system works...So there is a lot to understand about it.

The guy makes a good point. Saying it is a FACT isn't science.

 

[IanC]

while much more understated than Hal Lewis last year, this is pretty direct condemnation

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.’

he went on to say that it is OK to discuss the possible change in mass of a proton but not OK to discuss AGW theory. incontrovertable indeed

I think his problem is he has a problem with the word incontrovertible....It is NOT science to think that something is 100 percent fact on a complex subject like global warming...Global warming is a theory that must be tested and looked at by the entire field of science and can be proven false. IT IS NOT A LAW.

Global warming theory is put forward to explain why the earth is warming currently, which they put forward Co2 and other green house gasses as the drivers for that warming. IT IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX as POSITIVES DRIVERS ARE ONLY A PART OF THE EQUATION...There are negative drivers pushing down on them, but what ever remains is the imbalance, which warms or cools the planet. The big time scientist within the field are trying to figure how the system works...So there is a lot to understand about it.

The guy makes a good point. Saying it is a FACT isn't science.

yes, he obviously has a problem with the word in controvertable.

I wouldnt be surprised if he has a problem with apportioning causation to an effect that is smaller than our ability to measure the system. and much smaller than the error bars in other known effects.

 

[flacaltenn]

Mathew:

The guy makes a good point. Saying it is a FACT isn't science.

Better get RDean's permission for that..

What's gonna happen when all these "national academies" and politicized professional groups start looking around and can't find endorsers for their carefully coordinated statements?

 

[IanC]

from the American Physical Society-

National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

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.

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.

from Bishop Hill-

APS: AGW is controvertible
Sep 25, 2011 Climate: Sceptics This appears to be the surprising implication of a statement by the American Physical Society. Hot on the heels of the resignation of Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever from its membership, the society has issued a statement declaring that it has all been a terrible misunderstanding.

The APS says it that its climate change statement does not assert that "anthropogenic" (man-made) climate change is incontrovertible – but that the evidence of global warming is.

apparently we all read things into their statement that just werent there. I really cant understand how we jumped to conclusions from such a moderate, even handed and perhaps even wishy-washy statement.

 

[editec]

Incontrevertible IS a bit of an overstament, I quite agree.

 

[IanC]

Incontrevertible IS a bit of an overstament, I quite agree.

just like the APS is backing down from their climate change policy statement, expect many other institutions and govts to slip away from calling climate change predominantly man caused in the coming years. they will say, "yes we were concerned about warming but we never said it was only, or even mostly caused by CO2 emissions". and they will say it in such a pretty way that everyone will just shrug and say "that sounds about right".

 

[editec]

Incontrevertible IS a bit of an overstament, I quite agree.

just like...

WHAT is "just like" Ian?

the APS is backing down from their climate change policy statement, expect many other institutions and govts to slip away from calling climate change predominantly man caused in the coming years. they will say, "yes we were concerned about warming but we never said it was only, or even mostly caused by CO2 emissions". and they will say it in such a pretty way that everyone will just shrug and say "that sounds about right".

Now you're being outraged about something that MIGHT happen?

What?

Aren't there enough things that already happened or are happening to be outraged about, amigo?

Why are you taking this issue so personally?

 

[Si modo]

while much more understated than Hal Lewis last year, this is pretty direct condemnation

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.’

he went on to say that it is OK to discuss the possible change in mass of a proton but not OK to discuss AGW theory. incontrovertable indeed

Good for him.

And, I have to believe others with scientific integrity have also protested that statement in some form, as well. They just aren't as newsworthy.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. And does their 'scientific integrity' include lying about the evidence?

 

[Si modo]

LOL. And does their 'scientific integrity' include lying about the evidence?

No and I'm not surprised you have to ask.

 

[Old Rocks]

Whether you look at the increase in major weather disasters over the last few decades, or the melting of the cryosphere, the evidence is incontrovertible that the planet is warming rapidly. Now perhaps they should state that the evidence states that we are responsible for the warming is beyond a reasonable doubt. Would that satisfy you?

The physics of the absorption bands of GHGs has been known since 1858. You add GHGs to the atmosphere, you will warm the atmosphere. You add enough GHGs to the atmosphere to change the CO2 level from 280 ppm to an equivelent of 460 ppm, that warming will be significant. Could there be other factors that are also forcing the warming. Maybe. Is there any evidence that they approach the level of significance of the increase that the GHGs represent. None at all.

 

[Si modo]

Whether you look at the increase in major weather disasters over the last few decades, or the melting of the cryosphere, the evidence is incontrovertible that the planet is warming rapidly. Now perhaps they should state that the evidence states that we are responsible for the warming is beyond a reasonable doubt. Would that satisfy you?
....

No. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a scientific concept at all.

....

The physics of the absorption bands of GHGs has been known since 1858. You add GHGs to the atmosphere, you will warm the atmosphere. You add enough GHGs to the atmosphere to change the CO2 level from 280 ppm to an equivelent of 460 ppm, that warming will be significant. Could there be other factors that are also forcing the warming. Maybe. Is there any evidence that they approach the level of significance of the increase that the GHGs represent. None at all.

That argument wouldn't last 30 sec in a peer review.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really?

Beyond a reasonable doubt is not a scientific concept? The Theory of Evolution is not stated as incontrevertable fact, but as a theory beyond a reasonable doubt by present evidence. The Theory of Relitivity was beyond a reasonable doubt, but if the neutrinos actually were moving at C+, then there is now a reasonable doubt.

Every scientific Theory has problems with reality. A Theory is just a model of how reality works, and is often too simple, and there are other unknown factors, that are not included in the Theory. However, those Theories are still in use, as they are more than adaquete for most purposes. Newton versus Einstein.

Global warming hypothesis simply states that if we add GHGs to the atmosphere, the result will warm the globe. That is what we are observing. Now we are going to carry this grand experiment out to it's illogical conclusion, and probably exceed a GHG equivelent of 1000 ppm of CO2 by the end of this century. And people with a politically driven axe to grind, will still be stating that there is inadaquete science backing up the hypothesis even as all the great port citys of the world have to be moved inland.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Si, I am not a scientist. So here is what did pass peer review;

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Care to rebut that with a peer reviewed article?

 

[Si modo]

Really?

Beyond a reasonable doubt is not a scientific concept? The Theory of Evolution is not stated as incontrevertable fact, but as a theory beyond a reasonable doubt by present evidence. The Theory of Relitivity was beyond a reasonable doubt, but if the neutrinos actually were moving at C+, then there is now a reasonable doubt.

Every scientific Theory has problems with reality. A Theory is just a model of how reality works, and is often too simple, and there are other unknown factors, that are not included in the Theory. However, those Theories are still in use, as they are more than adaquete for most purposes. Newton versus Einstein.

Global warming hypothesis simply states that if we add GHGs to the atmosphere, the result will warm the globe. That is what we are observing. Now we are going to carry this grand experiment out to it's illogical conclusion, and probably exceed a GHG equivelent of 1000 ppm of CO2 by the end of this century. And people with a politically driven axe to grind, will still be stating that there is inadaquete science backing up the hypothesis even as all the great port citys of the world have to be moved inland.

Really.

I've suggested to you over and over that you learn the logic of scientific discovery and have even given links to it to you.

Yet, you remain willfully ignorant about such basics.

Gotta love free will.

 

[Old Rocks]

Gotta love politically driven asses that deny real science because of their politics.

 

[Si modo]

Gotta love politically driven asses that deny real science because of their politics.

Just because I oppose your and others' continuous soiling of science with politics doesn't mean I "deny" a thing.

Keep shitting on science. You never change. You are an enemy of science.

 

[IanC]

Incontrevertible IS a bit of an overstament, I quite agree.

just like...

WHAT is "just like" Ian?

the APS is backing down from their climate change policy statement, expect many other institutions and govts to slip away from calling climate change predominantly man caused in the coming years. they will say, "yes we were concerned about warming but we never said it was only, or even mostly caused by CO2 emissions". and they will say it in such a pretty way that everyone will just shrug and say "that sounds about right".

Now you're being outraged about something that MIGHT happen?

What?

Aren't there enough things that already happened or are happening to be outraged about, amigo?

Why are you taking this issue so personally?

Why am I taking it so personally? I deplore scientific institutions making knowingly distorted statements.

Quote:
National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

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.

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.

this statement from the APS gives no indication of uncertainty in the cause, size or effects of global warming. any normal reader would infer that it is human actions that are causing severe global warming and that the results will be bad if not catastrophic, especially if we dont act NOW.

when asked to defend their statement they weasel by saying only the global warming part is incontrovertible. yet they let their unscientific political statement stand, to influence other readers with their overblown rhetoric. it is a disgraceful use of scientific authority for a political cause.

 

[wirebender]

Whether you look at the increase in major weather disasters over the last few decades, or the melting of the cryosphere, the evidence is incontrovertible that the planet is warming rapidly. Now perhaps they should state that the evidence states that we are responsible for the warming is beyond a reasonable doubt. Would that satisfy you?

Define "rapidly" and does that definition include the cooling trend that has been going on for the past decade or so?

The physics of the absorption bands of GHGs has been known since 1858.

As have the "physics" of the emission bands rocks. This is a deliberate lie on your part because you can no longer claim ignorance. This has been explained to you. The emission bands are the precise opposite of the absorption bands and that tells anyone who is capable of thinking that whatever the molecule has absorbed, it is emitting. Nothing is being saved back or held.