Fox News broke the story of Ivar Giaever’s resignation from the American Physical Society 12 days ago. Fairfax only find out about it today. Is it selective hearing? Maybe, but credit to them for reporting on it. To be fair however, I haven’t seen the issue reported on by news limited, although I probably haven’t been looking hard enough.
NEW YORK: A Nobel laureate has resigned from one of the world’s leading organisations for scientists in protest at its assertions that the evidence of damaging global warming is ”incontrovertible”.
In a new challenge to claims of a scientific ”consensus” on climate change, Professor Ivar Giaever resigned from the 48,000-strong American Physical Society, where his peers had elected him a fellow to honour his work.
The society’s policy statement says: ”The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring.” But Professor Giaever, 82, who shared the 1973 Nobel physics prize, said: ”Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.”
”Global warming has become the new religion,” the US-based Norwegian physicist said.
Reading on, I was shocked to learn of the reaction from the ASP.
In its policy statement, the society says: ”Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate … The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring.”
A society spokesman said the society was ”disappointed” by Professor Giaever’s decision and his criticisms were based on ”misunderstandings”.
First of all, there’s the obvious question; what fantastic, incontrovertible evidence are they withholding from the rest of us? Secondly, why do they treat a Nobel laureate as though he is an imbecile? His objections are based on “misunderstandings”? That is an extraordinarily condescending remark to make of a scientist of Giaever’s calibre.
The problem is actually rather straightforward. They think the evidence is incontrovertible, while Giaever thinks this is a naive position, that is contrary to scientific curiosity.
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?
If Einstein’s relativity can be questioned when faced with contrary evidence, why can’t global warming?