Nobel-Prize Winning Physicist Resigns over Global Warming

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
Exactly. Politics and civil society are polar opposites; each can gain only at the other's expense. One is about control, the other about free choice. People who don't like barbeque can always order a pizza, or bring a salad. Nobody forces them to eat what the majority chose, or second-guesses what they choose to put on their plate. Run your next party like FedGov and see how that goes over. :D

I don't see how politics and civil society can be separated. Its the same realm of discourse. All societies are about control and all of politics is as much about inclusion and mobilization as it is about control.
 

Diana Hignutt

Very Tired
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
13,314
Reaction score
7,098
Location
Albany, NY
Albedo was asking an honest question - you need to unpack a refusal like that at least a bit or it comes off as pat at best, rude at worst.

I can't argue against the religiously held beliefs of others, sorry.

There is room for scientific research and debate in all areas...but the word incontrovertible is poisen to science, or it should be. Reminds one of the fact that science once held that the earth was the center of the universe as an incontroverible fact.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
Politics is not 'common ground.' If anything, it's a battleground, where the 51% can be convinced to trample on the 49% by the adequately silver-tongued. Witness Prop 8.

Battlegrounds are common grounds. Everybody brings what they can. If the silver-tongued convince enough people, then they win. If the eternally disenfranchised and grumpy lose, why is that a surprise?
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
I can't argue against the religiously held beliefs of others, sorry.

There is room for scientific research and debate in all areas...but the word incontrovertible is poisen to science, or it should be. Reminds one of the fact that science once held that the earth was the center of the universe as an incontroverible fact.

Ah, so you're saying it's a religious belief. Shall we just quietly delete the word incontrovertible and replace with "so overwhelmingly supported by evidence that our confidence level is 99.9%" or something? I think that's really the function that word is performing in the sentence.
 

Albedo

Alex
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
7,363
Reaction score
2,924
Location
A dimension of pure BEES
I can't argue against the religiously held beliefs of others, sorry.

There is room for scientific research and debate in all areas...but the word incontrovertible is poisen to science, or it should be. Reminds one of the fact that science once held that the earth was the center of the universe as an incontroverible fact.

Your point would be fair enough, IMO, if the biggest threat to AGW theory was mere contradictory research and robust debate. But unfortunately it's facing an onslaught of obfuscation, misinformation and flat-out sophistry, well-funded by certain industries with much to lose, and all backed up by some very powerful media organisations. In this climate, it pays to be forceful in stating that the science is, in fact, clear.

So I don't blame the physicists for wanting to shout this message from the rooftops, even at the cost of losing some of their more crotchety superannuated members. Nor do I think there's anything religious in doing so.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Ah, so you're saying it's a religious belief. Shall we just quietly delete the word incontrovertible and replace with "so overwhelmingly supported by evidence that our confidence level is 99.9%" or something? I think that's really the function that word is performing in the sentence.

As a statistician, I think I'd be a little uncomfortable with that. I don't really doubt AGW, but I'd have to see a thorough meta-analysis of the studies done, and confidence intervals don't really work that way anyway (but that's getting pedantic).

However, I haven't really seen this so-called persecution of anyone who dares to "debate" climate change in science, at least when it comes to actually publishing research.
 

jennontheisland

the world is at my command
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
7,270
Reaction score
2,125
Location
down by the bay
I can't argue against the religiously held beliefs of others, sorry.

There is room for scientific research and debate in all areas...but the word incontrovertible is poisen to science, or it should be. Reminds one of the fact that science once held that the earth was the center of the universe as an incontroverible fact.
Kinda like self evident truths, no?
 

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
As a statistician, I think I'd be a little uncomfortable with that. I don't really doubt AGW, but I'd have to see a thorough meta-analysis of the studies done, and confidence intervals don't really work that way anyway (but that's getting pedantic).

However, I haven't really seen this so-called persecution of anyone who dares to "debate" climate change in science, at least when it comes to actually publishing research.

How about we quietly delete my off-the-cuff pseudostatistics and replace with the actual figures ;) - which I'm sure will express a similar meaning.

Stats are neat.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I can't argue against the religiously held beliefs of others, sorry.

There is room for scientific research and debate in all areas...but the word incontrovertible is poisen to science, or it should be. Reminds one of the fact that science once held that the earth was the center of the universe as an incontroverible fact.
Actually, your example shows just the opposite. The idea that the earth was the center of the universe was a faith based belief, a philosophical concept that permeated the entire western worldview. It was not science.

Science as we know it came about in fairly recent times with the development of the scientific method, which relied on observation, experimentation, and replication of results. Until that hugely important revolution in thinking, experimentation and data collection were considered far inferior as a method for determining the truth than were philosophy and authority. The model of a geocentric universe was not science; it was overturned by science.

And, I might add, scientific discoveries that have shown the earth is not the center of the universe are incontrovertible.
 

PorterStarrByrd

nutruring tomorrows criminals today
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
33,701
Reaction score
2,013
Location
Moose Creek, Maine
While not by exact definition religious ... many of these views become defacto so.

There are places for both science and politics. Neither fits well into the other.

Let scientists be members of both realms but let them remember where they are at any given time. All the rhetoric in the world does not change scientific fact and it seems that all of the scientific fact in the world does not change rhetoric.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Setting aside the "incontrovertible" discussion, I find the next bit in the statement to be far more worrisome:

APS said:
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.

The earth has been undergoing climate changes for quite a while (to put it mildly). Regardless of the causes, species adapt or perish. That's life, in a nutshell. And note that no thought is given to the costs and consequences of taking "mitigating actions," nor is it acknowledged that any suggested actions may not mitigate anything.
 

rwam

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
188
Location
Glen Carbon, Illinois
I can't argue against the religiously held beliefs of others, sorry.

There is room for scientific research and debate in all areas...but the word incontrovertible is poisen to science, or it should be. Reminds one of the fact that science once held that the earth was the center of the universe as an incontroverible fact.

I agree completely. And I would further offer that the APS made their stance "incontrovertible" out of nothing more than fear. If they're so confident in their stance, the last thing they should do is make it incontrovertible.

Comparing global warming to a religious belief is very appropriate. How many free thinkers have been excommunicated over the centuries for challenging ideas that were deemed incontrovertible by the Church?
 

rwam

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
188
Location
Glen Carbon, Illinois
Setting aside the "incontrovertible" discussion, I find the next bit in the statement to be far more worrisome:



The earth has been undergoing climate changes for quite a while (to put it mildly). Regardless of the causes, species adapt or perish. That's life, in a nutshell. And note that no thought is given to the costs and consequences of taking "mitigating actions," nor is it acknowledged that any suggested actions may not mitigate anything.

Mankind's greatest flaw has always been his arrogance. Sure, we pollute merely by existing (as do cows), but it's always seemed a bit arrogant to me to presume I was killing the planet. Even so, I try to do my share to help. I suspect there's a lot of money at stake on both sides of the Global Warming debate.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
I
Comparing global warming to a religious belief is very appropriate. How many free thinkers have been excommunicated over the centuries for challenging ideas that were deemed incontrovertible by the Church?
As per my previous post, it was not so much "free thinkers" that were the problem.

It was scientists, who after using a fact based approach, were persecuted for coming to conclusions that ran contrary to faith.

Galileo, for example, ran into problems not because he propounded a theory the church found troubling. His big mistake was insisting it was true, and incontrovertible.

You know, kind of like climate scientists today.
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
The earth has been undergoing climate changes for quite a while (to put it mildly). Regardless of the causes, species adapt or perish. That's life, in a nutshell. And note that no thought is given to the costs and consequences of taking "mitigating actions," nor is it acknowledged that any suggested actions may not mitigate anything.
The problem here is that you are avoiding the scientific conclusions.

What's being said is that the climate changes are happening at a rate that is totally unprecedented. And that unprecedented rate of change is directly related to man made activities.

Whether it is too late to stop it is an open question. Whether politically it is possible to change how we use energy is another open question.

But your position seems to be that since those things are not at present something we can assert with confidence, and they can well have economic consequences, we should do nothing, apart from common sense ideas like not poisoning our rivers.

But if we do nothing, the consequences will be catastrophic -- that's what the scientists are saying. You (and many others) choose not to believe that, apparently. And by the time it becomes overwhelmingly obvious to all, it will indeed be too late.
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
I believe the global warming is caused by man for a very simple reason. Human greed. If it was not true, someone out there would be working to make fame and fortune out of debunking it, and he'd have the data to do it. This is not rocket science.

The scientific method rules science. Some people in authority, even in the sciences, may not like that. But there's always some mad doctor that will swallow his own concoction in order to prove that ulcers are bacteriological and not, as common knowledge dictates, gastrochemical, and be proven right.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
Setting aside the "incontrovertible" discussion, I find the next bit in the statement to be far more worrisome:



The earth has been undergoing climate changes for quite a while (to put it mildly). Regardless of the causes, species adapt or perish. That's life, in a nutshell. And note that no thought is given to the costs and consequences of taking "mitigating actions," nor is it acknowledged that any suggested actions may not mitigate anything.

Well, that's their take on the event. They think that mitigating actions will mitigate the severity of the event.

For example, at the present, CO2 is not only accumulating in the atmosphere, it is accumulating at an ever-increasing rate. If one takes the simple model that more CO2 gives an increasing likelihood of progressively more severe outcomes, then such mitigations as reducing the rate of increase could have a beneficial impact.
 

Jake Barnes

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
510
Reaction score
60
What contributions to climate science has Dr. Giaever ever made? Has he ever had a peer reviewed article published in the area of climate science? Specifically, has he ever had a peer-reviewed article written regarding global warming? If the answer is no, we're dealing with a Faux News controversy.
 

Jake Barnes

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
510
Reaction score
60
A quick Google search reveals that Dr. Giaever has never published in the area of climate science. He is however a paid "expert" listed with the Heartland Institute, an industry-funded organization that in addition to disputing that global warming exists also disputes that cigarette smoking causes cancer. The APS position has not changed in years, but Dr. Giaever takes this opportunity to quit the organization in a very public fashion. It looks like an eighty-two-year-old man who was looking for an Exxon-funded payday.
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
Newton's laws of motion were "incontrovertible" until some upstart patent examiner came along.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
The only "faith" involved in this whole thing is the faith in free market economics above all else. There is no free market solution to greenhouse gas emissions. And that is and always has been the source of the political resistance to addressing AGW. Acknowledging that AGW exists requires an acceptance of measures that require government intervention, and therefore, AGW must not accepted as truly happening by the far right.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
Newton's laws of motion were "incontrovertible" until some upstart patent examiner came along.

If we take GR as emerging in 1915, then it was getting checked observationally within 4 years and if you count the Mercury precession, then immediately. The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere has been being checked for much longer than that. Observationally, the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere must be among the most heavily re-checked areas of science there has ever been.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
The only "faith" involved in this whole thing is the faith in free market economics above all else. There is no free market solution to greenhouse gas emissions. And that is and always has been the source of the political resistance to addressing AGW. Acknowledging that AGW exists requires an acceptance of measures that require government intervention, and therefore, AGW must not accepted as truly happening by the far right.

I don't suppose we can blame it on the communists and say we have to have a green energy arms race to beat them?
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
The problem here is that you are avoiding the scientific conclusions.
No I'm not.

What's being said is that the climate changes are happening at a rate that is totally unprecedented.
No it's not. Assuming the predictions are accurate--which even the APS admits is a stretch--it's not "unprecedented."

But your position seems to be that since those things are not at present something we can assert with confidence, and they can well have economic consequences, we should do nothing, apart from common sense ideas like not poisoning our rivers.
Correct.
But if we do nothing, the consequences will be catastrophic -- that's what the scientists are saying. You (and many others) choose not to believe that, apparently. And by the time it becomes overwhelmingly obvious to all, it will indeed be too late.
But they can't say the consequences will be catastrophic. They don't know that to be true. For some reason though, people want it to be true.

The hubris of imagining complete control over the Earth's climate even exceeds the hubris of imagining complete control over the world's economy, or even the US economy.

Complex, open systems cannot be controlled in a simple, predicative manner. Both science and history should teach us that, if nothing else.