

Dr. Ivar Giaever  (Source:
Dr. Ivar Giaever announced his resignation Tuesday, September 13






From: Ivar Giaever []

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
Subject: I resign from APS

Dear Ms. Kirby




The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.



Best regards,


Ivar Giaever


Nobel Laureate 1973



Ivar Giaever




Comments     Threshold


RE: are insurance policies bad?
By rikulus on 9/16/2011 10:39:03 AM , Rating: -1
A) Are climate changes negative? I think this one is pretty clear - how much money did flooding in the USA cost this year? Billions. Record floods of the Mississippi earlier this summer. Hurricane Irene causing record flooding in Vermont, eastern New York, Pennsylvania, and points south. One week later Tropical Storm Lee causes record and near-record flooding in central New York and Pennsylvania. Three separate 500-year floods in one summer. The Susquehanna River in New York had 500 year floods in 2006, and reached nearly the same level again from Lee. How much will the fires in Texas cost? How about crop failures in Ukraine and Kazakstan raising world food prices? Even the one "silver lining" - the theory that US crop output would actually benefit from increased CO2 and changes in climate has not actually occurred, output actually dipped slightly.

B) Scientists haven't "proven" a hypothesis? Scientists haven't "proven" how gravity works, does that mean we can't predict how fast things will fall when we drop them? We do know for sure that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (there is a "proven" hypothesis for you.) We theorize that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will increase the earth's surface temperature. We can run small tests in a lab to see if that actually occurs on a small scale (which it does - another proven hypothesis.) We look for evidence that this theory is supported on large scale: has atmospheric CO2 increased (yes), has global surface temperature increased over the same timescale (yes), has anything else changed over the same timescale that could be an alternative explanation (none have matched so far.) So, science tells us that is a worthwhile working theory until a better theory comes along, and it is prudent to make predictions based on it and treat it as truth (which 98% of scientists do.)

C) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, more of it in the atmosphere increases it's affects, so yes - reducing the amount of CO2 emitted would reduce the changes to the climate.

Just because an ideal, solve all solution would cost a lot and put us in a "stone age standard of living" (which I don't agree is the case), doesn't mean we should do nothing. Yes, wind power is more expensive than coal power - but it's not outrageously more expensive - and the real costs of coal power (for health, for climate change) aren't included in those costs. And bottom line - any carbon emitting power source is a temporary power source, we need to develop energy sources that are sustainable. It is feasible to power our country on wind and solar (I didn't say it would be cheap, but it's feasible) and not have to import oil.

I can't help but think: how does the cost of a tomahawk missile compare to a large windmill? I'd rather we'd spent the last 10 years building windmills rather than blowing things up.

RE: are insurance policies bad?
By The Raven on 9/16/2011 12:31:22 PM , Rating: 3

Ok you are obviously trying to start a partisan debate. Don't believe everything the democratic party says. They are just as stupid as the republicans on a great many things IMHO.

It seems to me that for everything the reps get right that the dems get wrong, the opposite is true for other issues.

How about save the air and end the wars? Vote libertarian! (or cross the aisle to help get Ron Paul nominated during the rep primary ;-)

RE: are insurance policies bad?
By rikulus on 9/16/2011 2:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
Is "save the air" actually part of the Libertarian platform?

I heard Ron Paul talking about the environment on NPR a couple weeks ago. His idea that stricter personal property laws would solve those issues without the Government needing to get involved. But he did say that since water and air pollution travel from one property to another, that there would need to be government regulation of that... even though he had just finished saying he was going to get rid of government regulation. Aren't air and water the only things that really get regulated now anyways?

And stricter personal property laws to control pollution just sounds like more lawsuits and money for lawyers to me. And don't worry, I'm not naive enough to believe something a politician says. All I can do is know what I know, learn what I can, and watch out for guys that are saying the opposite.

RE: are insurance policies bad?




RE: are insurance policies bad?
By 0ldman on 9/16/2011 3:06:35 PM , Rating: 3

They haven't figured out the process of how/why gravity works, however, it is a measurable force. It is consistent, proven. Man made global warming is a bunch of arrogant, money grubbing jacks looking for suckers.

I think they found them.

Even reproducing the climate in a computer model is so complex that there is no way they've gotten it right. They can't predict weather, hurricanes, etc, with a single simulation. They run dozens, if not more, and come up with an average. Those still have a huge margin for error.

