Fox News reports the latest blow to the global-warming fraud:
Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.”
The distinguished scientist has a long, slow fuse that has been burning for a while:
Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signer of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.
Incidentally, Dr. Giaever’s research has produced important real-world applications. That separates him from the global-warming crowd, which is primarily interested in soaking up grant money in exchange for producing politically useful pseudo-science that helps statists grab power, at a substantial cost to their captive populations. From his profile at the Department of Energy’s website:
While working at GE Corporate Research and Development, Dr. Giaever and Dr. Charles R. Keese invented ECIS™ (Electric Cell-substrate Impedance Sensing), a technology, which studies, in real time, the activities of cells grown in tissue culture. … In 1991, as the potential applications of the ECIS technology became more apparent, Giaever and Keese formed Applied BioPhysics to develop, commercialize and market ECIS and other biophysical technologies.
Giaever is, however, no Hayek-loving proponent of economic liberty. He endorsed Obama’s disastrous brand of politically-controlled economics, supporting America’s Worst President during the 2008 elections by co-signing a letter critical of George Bush’s insufficient zeal for pouring federal money into science projects. An excerpt from the letter:
We have watched Senator Obama’s approach to these issues with admiration. We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation’s competitiveness. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take — through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research — to meet the nation’s and the world’s most urgent needs.
Well, sorry to break it to you, distinguished ladies and gentlemen of letters, but the scientific genius you supported for President flushed hundreds of billions of dollars into slush funds and “green energy” rat holes, with absolutely no satisfaction of “the nation’s and the world’s most urgent needs,” or enhancements to American “competitiveness.” After we finish prying Obama and his cronies away from the U.S. Treasury, I don’t imagine there will be much money floating around to fund your scientific endeavors for a while.
However gullible he might be in matters of politics, Dr. Giaever has had enough of the global warming con artists. The body of his resignation letter from the American Physical Society says, in full:
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.
(Emphases in the original.) “Global warming” has always consisted of three related arguments: the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere is rising; the effects of this increase are bad; and the increase is caused by human activity. Since too much evidence accumulated against the original version of this scam, only the really lazy con artists, like Al Gore, still talk about “global warming.” The new term of art is “climate change,” in which the temperature is either rising, falling, or both, and even if it’s not entirely caused by human activity, draconian political force can be deployed to make the little people behave in ways that will reduce the amount of up, down, or sideways temperature change to manageable levels.
In other words: Grr! Sky gods angry! Do as priests of sky gods say or you will suffer!
The staggering amount of pure fraud exposed as the “climate change” scam unravels – from emails proving key scientists cooked the data, to phony “polar bear extinction” studies, and the debunking of the “hockey stick graph” hoax that was the centerpiece of the global warming movement for years – coupled with the amount of money that citizens are still being forced to spend on climate change religious edicts, is enough to easily qualify global warming as the crime of the century.
True believers are completely unmoved by all this evidence of fraud, which sounds odd until you consider how desperately they want to believe in a religion that portrays them as initiates into complex mysteries beyond the understanding of the grubby, formerly free people they become empowered to both loathe and control. A future under the firm control of an enlightened elite, ruling on behalf of an Earth goddess whose omnipresent beauty leaves them free to despise apostates with exhilarating passion, is well worth swallowing a few massaged data tables and cooked-up hockey stick graphs.
Maybe some of those true believers will pause to ask the very simple and entirely rational questions posed by Dr. Ivar Giaever, who is not unsympathetic to their politics, but merely insists on the correct use of the word “incontrovertible.” Politicized science, on the scale envisioned by the global warming priesthood, is all about transforming theories into bludgeons of false certainty. You can’t squeeze billions of dollars out of unwilling people with words like “maybe” and “possibly.”