Earth’s temperature over last 150 years amazingly stable 21

The physicist Ivar Giaever, Nobel laureate, has resigned from the American Physical Society because of its position on “man-made global warming”.

For doing that he deserves more laurels.

Here is his letter of resignation in full. In it he quotes an APS statement [italicized by us] that makes its position plain. No true scientist could live with it.

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 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

  • Ralph

    The Earth’s climate cooled and the glaciers formed. The Earth’s climate changed and began to warm. The glaciers receded. All  this happened without human influence.

    • George

      Absolutely !

  • George

     The “man-made global warming racketeers ” have been caught with their pants down.  Quite a number of the scientists that were pushing this bogus agenda were caught “red-handed ” sending fake e-mails with fraudulent claims  that automobiles, industrial plants  , and jet aircraft , etc. were causing extreme hot temperatures  globally , and that glaziers were going to melt , the ocean to rise, polar bears  and carribou were to go almost  extinct , etc .   
                  I read in an atheist/humanist magazine a few articles pushing this bogus nonsense.      The “greens” just like  their Liar In Chief   ( whats his name ) in Washington DC , have been shoving this lie down the throats of the American public nonstop. They have a dubious agenda and  this has been at the forefront.  Our temperature changes are “cyclical ”   and much of our temperature and weather changes here on earth have been because of solar flares on the sun , volcanic eruptions, and generally natural causes .    More pollution came out of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens volcano  than from all of the automobiles in existence since Henry Ford.  The carribou have multiplied along the  Alaskan pipeline because they stay warm around  the pipeline trail and much vegetation has also grown along the pipeline as a vast source of food for animal life.  They found that even the spotted owl can live almost anywhere  ( even in barns ) . I wonder where they think the term “barn owl” comes from.  The liberals along with the left-wing mass media have  been shoving this propaganda down the throats of American citizens perpetually.  It is agenda driven indeed and further proof that the mainstream media cannot be trusted as a reliable and honest source of factual news in general.  In fact many scientists ( who are honest ) have asserted that if we do ever have a major temperature change at a particular time period , it would actually be a “global cooling “.   As for now there is no cause for global panic.  The media is using scare tactics to  deceive the public to promote their “green” agenda. What else is new !

  • Harold

    He got his Nobel in quantum tunneling, so he is an educated layman as far as climate science goes.

    Obviously, someone of such stature cannot be ignored.  However, presumably the majority of the APS supports the statement.  If you want to know what nobel laureates think about global warming, you could try to find out.  For example, here is a statement signed by about 100 Nobel laureates, which is the first one that comes up in a Google search. 
    http://dieoff.org/page123.htm
    Maybe there are other statements signed by scores of Nobel laureates denying global warming, but I didn’t find them.  If you want to use the experience of Nobel laureates to inform your position, you could get some view on how many support and how many oppose the view of AGW.  If you want to back up a preconceived position, you could sieze on any that happen to agree, and claim this was conclusive evidence for your point of view.

    • George

      Actually there  has been an internal debate on the issue among scientists . Also an argument can be made on both sides. We cannot dismiss the effect that pollution causes upon our environment and I have heard conservatives on radio talk shows downplay the problem which can be at the opposite side of the spectrum just as deceitful as the previous presentation I mentioned earlier. I also became suspect upon listening to many right-wing talk shows that tried to imply that there is NO problem whatsoever which is just as deceitful as those on the other hand creating massive panic vice-versa.   I then began to even question those who were trying to eagerly dismiss the whole thing altogether as being a sham and that equally isn’t true and your point in that regard Harold is also well taken as well.     I have been questioning both sides and continue to research  both presentations .   The thing that actually bothers me  Harold is that we have so many people ( on both the left and the right ) who are agenda driven in  that more and more people are becoming increasingly non-trusting of various media sources and even so-called  “professionals “.  Your point is well noted sir !

    • George

      Actually there  has been an internal debate on the issue among scientists . Also an argument can be made on both sides. We cannot dismiss the effect that pollution causes upon our environment and I have heard conservatives on radio talk shows downplay the problem which can be at the opposite side of the spectrum just as deceitful as the previous presentation I mentioned earlier. I also became suspect upon listening to many right-wing talk shows that tried to imply that there is NO problem whatsoever which is just as deceitful as those on the other hand creating massive panic vice-versa.   I then began to even question those who were trying to eagerly dismiss the whole thing altogether as being a sham and that equally isn’t true and your point in that regard Harold is also well taken as well.     I have been questioning both sides and continue to research  both presentations .   The thing that actually bothers me  Harold is that we have so many people ( on both the left and the right ) who are agenda driven in  that more and more people are becoming increasingly non-trusting of various media sources and even so-called  “professionals “.  Your point is well noted sir !

    • Jillian Becker

      Harold – 

      Can you not see that what the man says in his letter makes sense, and would make sense whoever says it, scientist or layman? His Nobel laurels have nothing to do with it – the award just happens to be in his biography, and an indication that he is a good thinker.  

      He says no scientist should ever say that an idea is incontrovertible. That’s plain sense. To believe ideas are incontrovertible is to be religious, not scientific. 

      He implies that no one knows how to measure the temperature of the whole earth for a whole year. You can check on that for yourself. 

      He takes the figures given to him by believers in man-made global warming and points out that the difference is small, which means that, if they are correct, the climate has been “remarkably stable”. 

      Why does this need to be explained laboriously to you? You raise points that are irrelevant to the article.  Do you just enjoy being disputatious for the hell of it? 

      Criticism is welcome, but carping is not.   

      • George

        Harold, please check out what Jillian is saying please.  Here is where I am going Harold. I believe that the entire  “global warming alarm ” was a fiasco created to promote  a “green” agenda. Now having said that Harold I also believe as  I stated a few moments ago  that there are also SOME people on the “right”  that have a selfish greed to ignore safeties and environmental dangers ( but that is miniscule compared to the overall  concept ) sir.    I gave Harold the benefit in acknowledging that and yes there are situations where SOME scientists disagree on this but the fact still remains that the global warming agenda as a whole was a scam.   I do believe that Harold is focusing on information from probably  PC sources .  I’m not sure but just a hunch . Just a guess.   I want Harold to know that I am not being argumentative in this matter or the other but I have to indeed challenge certain sources of information.   As I said Harold in my previous post and I tried to be as polite in stating this , in that much of the global warming alarm has been overwhelmingly acknowledged by the majority of scientists ( as I have studied and been informed ) to have been an agenda created by left-wing sources and is bogus.   I also made it clear to Harold that  I am open and continuing to study both sides of the argument. I later also acknowledged that there are a few situations that have indicated problems with pollution but the more I study the situation from the majority of sources of information I have gathered —– it’s a hoax.   I am more toward accepting the earth has been relatively stable for the past 150 years.  One scientist that I heard on a radio talk show gave the time date much further beyond 15o years.   However Harold, this doesn’t mean that we haven’t had blizzards, drought , extremely high temperatures ( even recently and even now )  on sporadic occassions but from the sources I have received and studied it isn’t a panic and horrific situation.   I’m curious to know the people Harold has been receiving info regarding these issues.   I am not saying this to be confrontational and I want to be honest regarding that . As the article says our general earth temperature has generally been stable for a mass multitude of generations now. I heard this on a show presented by a noted scientist who is a specialist in the field.  I am NOT an expert in this subject but only quoting the science and scientist sources I have heard and read that have  CONFIRMED  the stability of our climate..  I hope  that Harold sees my point here objectively as  I am trying to be.  Oh , and for the record  Harold, this is not my field of expertise. I’m only quoting other sources sir.

        • Harold

          George, I am sorry if I have mis-represented your view.  I took the phrases ” I believe that the entire  “global warming alarm ” was a fiasco created to promote  a “green” agenda” and ” the fact still remains that the global warming agenda as a whole was a scam” on their own, possibly out of context.  You do state that you believe that pollution can be a problem, but you say “that much of the global warming alarm has been overwhelmingly acknowledged by the majority of scientists ( as I have studied and been informed ) to have been an agenda created by left-wing sources and is bogus”.  This is just wrong, and you seem to have been mis-informed.  As C.Gee said, nearly all scientific bodies in the world have made statements agreeing with the main conclusions that there is warming and it is very likely to be caused by human activity.

          Many of the things you say are correct, but do not have anything to do with AGW.  The world has had extremes of temperature over geological times caused by the very things you say.  However, this can be true AND it can also be true that we are currently experiencing global warming caused by CO2 emmissions.

          It is also true that some media and some individuals and some scientists have made statements that go beyond what can be proved.  However, the main IPCC scientific claim that there is GW and it is “very likely” to be caused by humans  do not fall into this catagory.  These main claims are entirely consistent with the evidence and theory, and are accepted by the majority of scientists.

          It is true that some have said “its the end of the world!!”.  this is clearly nonsense, as the world will carry on quite happily with a significant increase in temperature – as it has in the past.

          No, what is at risk is either VERY significant costs to ameliorate the effects of GW, and/or very significant loss of life due to droughts, famines, storms, flooding and the like.  After all, it cost $15 billion to improve the levees around New Orleans, just one city.  Imagine the cost if we had to do similar measure across all our major coastal cities.

          Now, I believe there is a valid debate to be had over how much we should spend to reduce these costs – how much do we care about future people and distant people?   After all, we do not do very much to prevent premature death in Africa at the moment, so if we are to spend money to prevent death, maybe it would be better spent on clean water than reducing CO2.   We don’t save all our money so our children and grandchildren will be even richer, so why should we spend to cut CO2 emmissions, to make future generations richer?   All valid debates, consistent with the evidence.

          What is not consistent with the evidence is to sieze on any view that dissents from the mainstream, and conclude that there is genuine “debate”, and that the sensible position is in the middle of the two extremes.

          So lets accept that AGW is here, and have a proper debate about how to deal with it. 

        • Harold

          Your comment of 3 hours ago also has no reply button.  Iwill defer to Michael in matters of archeology, but not climate science.  My point is that we cannot reach a valid conclusion by picking only a few people to listen to.

          You say you quote science and science sources that CONFIRM the stability of the climate.  I can quote myriad scources that CONFIRM AGW.  Who is right?  How can we know?  We can’t know for certain, but we as laymen can attempt to come to the best conclusion we can by establishing what the consensus of experts is.   I will just say that if you are presenting as a consensus that AGW has been disproved I think you will find that view incorrect with a bit of further digging.   I can point to almost every scientific institute as presenting a consensus that AGW is real.

          I would like to see the scources you claim prove the stability of the climate.  If you provide a particular source I will review it and seee if I can find any errors.  If I can’t I may be persuaded to your view.  If I can find errors that invalidate the argument, then send me another.

          Thanks for the generally respectful and constructive tone of our discussion.  I don’t think we can go much further without a specific point to discuss.  I can provide specific evidence that AGW is real in the form of the IPCC report. 

      • Harold

        Well, it is good to see that your argument is with the APS, and not AGW.  I had thought that your post was intended to lead people to believe that global warming was insignificant.

        To say that nobody knows how to measure the temperature of the Earth is tantamount to saying we might as well not bother with research.   We can and do acheive estimates of global temperatures which allow comparisons over time.  These comparisons are able to show warming or cooling.

        The size of the change may appear “small” – especially if you express it in degrees Kelvin.  It sounds a bit bigger if you say 15 to 15.8 C.  However, that is totally meaningless to most of us.  A small change can have a big effect, and the size of the change is relative. 

        For non experts, we can try to form opinions about these type of things by listening to the experts.  Sometimes there is genuine dispute among experts, and a clear position is difficult to arrive at.  Concerning AGW, there is very little dispute among experts about the existence of a significant amount of AGW.  There is genuine dispute about the precise size of the effect, the precise impact and particularly about the best way to deal with it.

        There have been examples in the past where the scientific community was wrong.  On examination, these all turn out to be based on assumptions made on very little evidence, and very little resarch.  If GW turns out to be wrong, it will be the first time that a very significant research effort has actually led to a backward movement in our understanding.

        George believes the whole of GW is a scam.  I believe his position is inconsistent with a reasonable examination of the information out there.  I don’t suppose George will agree with me.  I have found that every seemingly convincing argument that disputes GW does not hold water when examined closely.   I would say that if he has a particularly damning example I would be glad to look at it – I may be convinced.

        A reasonable position is that there is AGW, but that to spend a lot of money would be a poor use of resources since there are more important issues to deal with.  Some actions taken “in the name of GW” are very expensive for the amount of CO2 saved.  Others are relatively inexpensive.  If you take this position, then reasoned arguments are possible.

        I don’t know your position, since you do not actually state it.  Can we agree that AGW is the best theory we currently have that fits the data, but the APS were too strong in their wording when they said is was “incontravertable”?  Perhaps we could agree on “very likely”?

        • George

          Harold  , I never said that  EVERYTHING regarding global warming is a scam. I said that  MOST  of the scientists from the various scientist information sources that I have heard, read and have been presented with  ( the majority as being the concensus ) accept that  MUCH  of what has presented is indeed bogus.  If you had been paying attention to what I clearly pointed out , I made it perfectly clear that BOTH sides have had  their significant points and that we should indeed observe both sides of the argument to objectively get  an informed  understanding.   But then again as usual , you use selective deduction in what you want to hear ( or rather READ ).
                           The vast extremes of temperature according to  the majority of scientists from a multitude of sources I   have studied and had science scholars  explain to me  is that our climate change conditions are cyclical and from natural sources such as solar flares, volcanic eruptions and the like and not from auto , industrial plant or jet plane exhausts which the liberal pundits and media are pushing.  Yes we do have as I stated before various sources of pollution , etc. whah has had an environmental effect  and no one is denying this whatsoever.
                               In addition , I also made it perfectly clear that this is NOT my field of expertise and I was only relaying info from stated sources , but then again those statements bypassed you altogether. As usual , I’m not surprised !

        • George

          Harold , I was unable to reply to your last post of  an hour ago. I suggest that you take heed to the poster Michael who commented on here who actually happens to be a scientist and has now confirmed what I previously stated.  If I am going to accept a professional point of view on this discussion forum on this issue , I will indeed accepts HIS explanation for sure  rather than yours , mine or anyone else who is not an EXPERT and professionally knowledgeable in the field. You appear ( in my opinion ) to be playing right into the hands of the likes of people like Al Gore and the radical liberal left establishment.  These people are vehemently agenda driven and are without a doubt trying to promote their “green” agenda and therefore “global warming” is right at the forefront as a tool for their propaganda machine. Do not be deceived Harold. They are using you and your ilk as a tool to foster their dubious “green” agenda.
                     Also for the record Harold , I am a fan of alternative energies if they are proven to be efficient, and safe and affordable.   Furthermore Harold , it has been shown by several scientific studies that what is causing temperature changes around the world ( contrary to liberal left wing beliefs ) is NOT someone driving their SUV or flying around in their private corporate LearJet , but rather natural causes  and not pollutions per se.  Yes as I have stated before we do indeed have industrial pollutants that contribute to such and I am in no way denying this or downplaying the problem , but the fact still remains , this global warming  HYSTERIA  (  not all of it )  is indeed as reported by many reputable scientists in MANY  instances to be a  SCAM !!!!!!!

        • George

          Harold , let’s back up a moment –lets both take a breather please. I am actually in agreement with your first paragraph and you are actually saying what I am saying only from a different perspective.     I said and lets not get things out of their proper perspective sir.   I  am NOT saying that the certain specific scientists I am quoting from have absolutely concluded beyond any doubt that there is no problem with any man-made effects of global warming.   What I am indeed saying is that these specific ones  I am referring to have investigated the entire argument and they even found that from within their own ranks or circles were corrupt officials ( scientists ) that did in fact have a fraudulent scam going on and were in cahoots with agenda driven “green” political activists funding their efforts which did indeed smack with deceit. 
                         You also don’t realize it but you’re agreeing with me again by the fact that I said we need to observe BOTH sides of the argument to be truly objective. Go back and read my previous posts where I stated this to one of the posters. Let’s not turn this matter into any form of heated argument which is NOT my style and I am trying to prevent such.  I am NOT an expert in this field which I  clearly stated in clear terms  and that I am only citing statements from these scientist sources.   Now , if by chance you sir are NOT in agreement with this   Harold, then your argument is with THEM—not me , as I ‘m only relaying  the info–  I’m not the source. 
                         Having said that , I am also disgusted with those on the right and I want to be totally honest here in that  I have observed some on the right who will allow our environment to falter and be spoiled for the sake of PROFIT and big business. And these right-wingers are as corrupt if not mose so than the corrupt liberals. Do you agree ?  I don’t have the answers Harold. Also , did you check  out the follow up article posted by Jillian after this one on another scientist  resigning.  It’s happening more and more.  I heard a scientist whilstle blower  on a radio program “spilling the beans ” so to speak regarding this issue.
                          I will be the first to concede that  there is indeed deceit on BOTH sides. Money corrupts , and power corrupts and so many people  (  left and right  ) are agenda driven and they don’t give a rat’s   a**   about the safety , welfare or best interest of the citizenry as a whole ( and that includes you and me ).   There is a lot of money behind this fiasco and a lot of POLITICS as well.  I am suspicious of both sides but from what I have received as far as info is concerned from quite a number of scientists testimony  , I am MORE suspicious of the “green” agenda advocates  ( tilting the scale in that direction ) because I know how they operate . We have industrial giants destroying the rain-forrests, dumping toxic wastes in rivers, lakes, and also buried underground.  We have polluters and people destroying wildlife and there is indeed a problem on both sides which I alluded to previously. The more I have studied this matter INDEPENDENTLY the more I am finding out how corrupt this whole thing really is. I am NOT going to join one side wholeheartedly because I have indeed a suspicion of both but lately I am more worried on a percentile scale of the  the  “greens” and their lying and underhanded tactics. This is  not to say the other side isn’t as corrupt as well ( and we certainly  cannot ignore that as well ).  This is why I conclude that we have to be OPEN and question both .  I speak from many personal  bad experiences I’ve had with the greens  and it has left a bad image .  I do not want any censorship of either side and we do indeed need to listen to BOTH.  Our lives and the lives of our children and their children depend on it.  We all need to put our heads together for solutions and honest corrections of the wrongs commited. This is not conjecture but pragmatism. Thank you. 

    • C.Gee

      No one with scientific integrity should argue from authority or consensus.  Ivar Giaever does not.  Nor does Jillian Becker.  You do. You impugn Giaever’s statement on the grounds that he is not a climate scientist and that many other Nobel Laureates have signed a petition endorsing AGW climate science.  

      The APS, like almost every other national or international professional scientific body (except, to their credit, for a few geological bodies who remain non-committal) has issued a political statement in favor of AGW, not a scientific one. Most of these bodies, unsurprisingly, simply express agreement with the IPCC reports. The IPCC conducted any original science, the authors of the reports merely collecting data for the purpose of providing a document for international co-operation.  The professional scientific bodies  also have not conducted any scientific investigation of their own – as a body – into any aspect of climate change. They have – usually through a self-selected committee of political activists whether or not also climate scientists – merely asserted as their scientific opinion the IPPC ‘s and supporting reports of climate scientists that there has been warming, that this is due to man, and that the change will be catastrophic unless steps are taken to prevent it. The committees can get away with speaking for the entire membership by relying on inertia and collegial deference. A specialist in one field will defer to a specialist in another field. But a statement by the APS or any other body is not in itself an authoritative scientific statement. It has no more authority on the actual science than a petition (signed by Nobel laureates or anyone else) would have. It is a form of petition. The Royal Society, by the way, was forced to change its statement by dissenting members (though not very far). 

      By definition, any normative statement, any “position” statement put out by  professional scientists in an institutional capacity supporting political action from scientific conclusions is epistemologically suspect. There is incontrovertible evidence of genetic influence on intelligence. The Institute of Geneticists is not speaking as a scientist when it puts out a statement that based on such evidence mankind should institute eugenics programs.  

      If only “climate scientists” are qualified among scientists to speak on climate with authority, but Lindzen and other dissenters are discounted because they are in a minority, then the “consensus” will ultimately be the unanimous self-endorsement of the Hockey Team – the core authorities on their own work. They are the best qualified to agree with themselves. 

      I do not know how many of the Hockey Team are Nobel laureates. But the IPCC and Al Gore are.  So, yes, one can find Nobel laureates on any side of a political issue, but at least Giaever received his for actual science and not for “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

      • lucretius

        Perhaps this is a good moment to recall the statement by the geological science committee of the Polish Academy of Science. There are no Nobel Prize winners on the list, but at least they all know what they are talking about, which is not the same thing.

        “Experiments in natural science show that one-sided observations, those that take no account of the multiplicity of factors determining certain processes in the geo-system, lead to unwarranted simplifications and wrong conclusions when trying to explain natural phenomena. Thus, politicians who rely on incomplete data may take wrong decisions. It makes room for politically correct lobbying, especially on the side of business marketing of exceptionally expensive, so called eco-friendly, energy technologies or those offering CO2 storage (sequestration) in exploited deposits. It has little to do with what is objective in nature. Taking radical and expensive economic measures aiming at implementing the emission only of few greenhouse gases, with no multi-sided research into climate change, may turn out counterproductive.”Here is the full statement in English: http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/25390.pdfwith a link to the original Polish.

        • George

          One thing you stated rings true and that is no one should take a one sided observation. The same holds true for all other observations . Such a position directs a person on the path of openmindedness. 

      • lucretius

        Perhaps this is a good moment to recall the statement by the geological science committee of the Polish Academy of Science. There are no Nobel Prize winners on the list, but at least they all know what they are talking about, which is not the same thing.

        “Experiments in natural science show that one-sided observations, those that take no account of the multiplicity of factors determining certain processes in the geo-system, lead to unwarranted simplifications and wrong conclusions when trying to explain natural phenomena. Thus, politicians who rely on incomplete data may take wrong decisions. It makes room for politically correct lobbying, especially on the side of business marketing of exceptionally expensive, so called eco-friendly, energy technologies or those offering CO2 storage (sequestration) in exploited deposits. It has little to do with what is objective in nature. Taking radical and expensive economic measures aiming at implementing the emission only of few greenhouse gases, with no multi-sided research into climate change, may turn out counterproductive.”Here is the full statement in English: http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/25390.pdfwith a link to the original Polish.

      • George

        Thank you C. Gee  !

    • Michael

      If you couldn’t find any statements against human-caused global warming by scientists, then you didn’t look very hard.  One Google search and two seconds’ reading found a petition signed by over THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND scientists. This is available at:  http://www.oism.org/pproject/

      As a scientist myself, (archaeologist) I am disgusted at the way the liberal establishment and the climate-change hoaxers have twisted the evidence and turned a scientific speculation into an invented “crisis” in order to further their own fascist political agenda.

      • George

        You are totally correct Michael , but Harold won’t listen to you anyway. I actually believe  ( in my opinion )  that Harold just likes to argue for the sake of arguing .  We all are entitled to our different views but an expert in a field has more validity than a mere “layman”  anyday.   You are a scientist and you would know .  This doesn’t mean that scientists can’t be wrong or in error, but your expertise in this matter makes YOU more credible as I have posted previously. Thank you sir for your input !