Nobel Laureate Resigns From American Physical Society, Citing Global Warming Nonsense As Reason, And Also, Gardasil

Okay, not Gardasil.

Full email at Climate Depot.

“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.'

...

"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.’"

The article notes:

Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter.

This is a really odd thing. As Giaever points out, science -- real science -- is supposed to be a field of free-ranging inquiry. As they say, there are no stupid questions. Every question is conceivably an interesting one -- depending on the facts and theories it might lead to.

Except.

Except for one field, where all scientists are supposed to line up to swear that the current science is absolutely perfect and in no need of additional refinement, testing, skepticism, challenge, or testing.

There's no point. No further work to be done.

Does the sun contribute to climate shifts via cosmic rays?

FYNQ. We don't want to hear that question. We do not want to run tests on that, we do not want to incorporate the evidence from such tests into existing (flawed, incomplete) models.

In this one area of science, and no other, you are not permitted to do anything but nod your head at the claims made by politicians.

What is acceptable to ask in science is sharply demarcated by the political impact such questions might have. If there might be some political impact, you are expressly forbidden to ask.

And, pretty much, any deviation from the "consensus" would be interpreted as some doubt in the consensus, and therefore would have political impact, so no, you're not permitted to ask pretty much anything.

I don't even know if Giaever even disagrees with AGW theory -- he may just find this rigidly religious take on science, with strictly defined blasphemies and only some permitted prayers and songs, to be repugnant in and of itself.

posted by Ace at 07:27 PM

| Access Comments