Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever's speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015.

[fjlip]

Here are the facts, very simply stated by an intelligent person. What a global tragedy we are being subjected to. Massive $$$ for NO result! Happy New Year to all the mislead...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0&feature=youtu.be


He has several great points that needed to be addressed by the scientific society:

1. Many ground temperature measuring points are measured near heavily populated areas and those areas typically has higher temperatures due to manmade heat sources and there are a lot less measuring points in more remote continents. Shall we trust these kind of measurements?
2. What's the optimal temperature for the earth?
3. For the past 19 years, the amount of CO2 has increased by 50% of the 100 year before but the temperature has been stable. Why?
4. The amount of money for Global warming research is much much more (probably 1000 to 1 or more) than research against. Is that a motivation enough for people to justify their grant money by not speaking out against or manipulation of the data to justify their grant money?
5. It is scientifically true that greenhouse and warming are good for plants and trees and allow more food sources. Again, why is slight global warming bad for earth when there is more food for all human?
6. In greenland, the warmest temperatures are pretty much all in the 1930s, is that a local phenomenon or this is an indication of non-warming?
7. Ocean has been rising the same amount for the past several 100 year periods (20cm), there is no sign of Ocean rising abnormally, why?

To me, there are several global warming questions that need further debate and IMO it is certainly not scientific to say it is "incontrovertible":

A. Is the globe warming?
B. Is the global warming due to man made CO2 emission or is it a natural occurrence?
C. Why is the global warming bad and what is the optimal temperature for the Earth?
D. How much can we do to reduce global warming and is the amount of money spent justify as opposed to helping human suffering in other ways such as addressing poverty and reduce famine and wars? From my own research, if we stopped additional CO2 emission all together, the maximum benefit in the next 100 years is 1 degree reduction (that's assuming earth doesn't warm itself due to other factors such as Sun activities), is the hundreds of trillions that we need to spent well worth it?

IMO, saying that we need to reduce CO2 emission without answering these questions is taking an extreme measure and I don't like taking extreme position without answering some pointed questions and better evidence, that is politicians' jobs.

[dmlfarmer]

[QUOTE=fjlip;334659]Here are the facts, very simply stated by an intelligent person. What a global tragedy we are being subjected to. Massive $$$ for NO result! Happy New Year to all the mislead...



After following fjilip's links, I suggest you check out [URL="https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html"]https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html[/URL] for a response to some of the questions Giaever asks.

Interesting to note that Giaever is not a climate scientist and that he stated in his first speech on climate change his knowledge of climate change came from a "day or so of googling it"

Also I note that while Giaever opposed climate change at the 2015 meeting, 36 nobel laureates signed a memorandum calling for CO2 reductions at the same meeting.

[dmlfarmer]

Here is a link to the reporting of the July 2015 meeting in Time magazine. Before deniers get to excited about fjilip's post, read this Time article

[URL="http://time.com/3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/"]http://time.com/3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/[/URL]

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A lot of good questions.

It is very presumptuous of humanity to arbitrarily decide that the temperature and climate of the earth at year X was ideal, and any deviation from that will necessarily be negative.

The english channel, the black sea and countless other underwater locations have villages and farms underneath them, greenland had farms for centuries, much of the middle east was a literal eden, but is now desert. I'm sure if we asked the former inhabitants of those locations what an ideal climate looks like, they would disagree that 1950, or 1900, or 1850 were the ideal situation which we should all strive to achieve.



Even assuming that all global warming and resulting sea level rise predictions are completely true, which so far, they are proving not to be, but lets make the assumption. I maintain that we could adapt to warming. We can grow much more food, more efficiently in a warmer world(I did the math on the amount of land at each latitude)With energy, we can rebuild infrastructure in places safe from sea level rise. People are portable, as they have been since the beginning of time. As long as we still have places to grow food we will survive. Conserving our soil, eliminating pollution of our soil, water and air so it will be able to grow our food for millennia to come should be our top priority. It has been very short sighted of humans to build most of our major cities at virtually sea level, knowing full well that sea levels have been inexorably rising since the last ice age. At some point we will need to accept that we can't beat nature forever. Unless of course another ice age comes along in time to stop natural sea level rise. Which will save a lot of real estate from inundation, but will compound the problem of feeding all the people.

[stonepicker]

Here is a link to the reporting of the July 2015 meeting in Time magazine. Before deniers get to excited about fjilip's post, read this Time article

[URL="http://time.com/3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/"]http://time.com/3945630/lindau-nobel-laureates-meetings/[/URL]

??? I wonder who the real denier is.

[redleaf]

Quote from time article where Physics laureate Brian Schmidt introduced the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change,
"We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group."
So much BS.
DML I guess it's ok for non experts to "declare" but anyone who even so much as questions the new religion is dismissed and derided with enthusiasm by the global warming/climate change/wealth redistribution/tax grab/ new world order etc. crowd.

[dmlfarmer]

Quote from time article where Physics laureate Brian Schmidt introduced the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change,
"We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group."
So much BS.
DML I guess it's ok for non experts to "declare" but anyone who even so much as questions the new religion is dismissed and derided with enthusiasm by the global warming/climate change/wealth redistribution/tax grab/ new world order etc. crowd.

Redleaf, you missed my point. Fjilip is defending his own climate change beliefs by quoting "a very intelligent person" who by Giaever's own admission is not an expert and has spent very little time studying climate change. All I am doing, as a true skeptic would, is presenting the other side of the issue - something it seems very few people on this site is willing to do.

Just because you are a nobel laureate does not mean you are an expert on everything and I applaud rather than criticise Schmidt for admitting that. And if you would have quoted all what Schmidt said (“those of us who sign do so because we feel we have a moral-bound duty as a scientist on an issue that has such lasting consequences…) instead of cherry picking just part of his sentence what worked for your argument it would have given a lot different meaning to Schmidt's words.

Friedrich Hayek and Paul Krugman are both expert economists and both have won Nobel prizes yet their economic views are polar opposites. I do listen to both of these people on economic theory including the impact of global warming actions on the economy. But I would not give the same weight to whether they feel CO2 is the cause of global warming.

And since it appears most of the participants on this forum disagree and dislike Obama, may I point out he also won a Nobel in 2009 and we all know his position on global warming. So if simply having a Nobel is enough to make you an expert on anything I guess 36 nobel signatories plus Obama outweights one Giaever.

[seabass]

I question what it means to be a nobel prize winner. Who picks it and what credentials are required. Look at the people we enthrone on TV. Makes me sick the pedestal we put them on. Then they use that proclaimed throne to forward there political agenda, climate change view among other things. Based on what expertise? Alec "Fathead" Baldwin comes to mind.

[fjlip]

What is the optimal temperature for the Earth?

Find the answer in all the "peer reviewed" even smarter Laureates/Nobel Prizes/EXPERTS,
let the rest of us "deniers"/dummies KNOW!!!

Like Ivar suggests and I have said before, NO WAY in hell can the temperature of the earth be measured to decimal points of a degree! , and for a hundred years?
Absolutely ridiculous to repeat/print the words/thought!
So many variables and progress in thermometer technology.
Get real!
I said he was " an intelligent person", never said EXPERT, big difference....
You don't need to be a " climate scientist", just a rational thinking person to see this is a HOAX from A to Z, total lies and BULLSHIT!

[dmlfarmer]

Arguing that there is a global optimal temperature is a straw man. No one is saying that any global temperature is optimal. However, the entire premise of climate change is that a global increase in temperature will disrupt society. Physically, there will be a dislocation of people in many low lying and coastal areas. How many will be displaced will depend upon how much global warming and subsequent sea level increases there are. But up to 1 billion people could be at risk under the worst case. Where and how does society handle such a flood of displaced people. Roughly it would bee 100 times more people looking for a new home than all the Syrians displaced by ISIS conflict. How many Chinese, Bangladesh, and India refugees should Canada take in?

Economically, the potential costs of climate change are a lot bigger than the costs of reducing fossil fuel dependence. Think of insurance costs from increased storms, the costs of protecting entire cities from rising sea levels, the cost of simply dealing with hotter tempertures. The global air conditioning costs already outweights the global costs of heating and as temppertures rise the demand of more airconditioning increases even in cold climate countries like Canada.

Resources: yes we may be able to grow more crop in temperate areas, but in hotter areas of the world, production goes down. Melting glaciers supply much of the fresh water throughout the world both for cities and agriculture. Loss of water for agriculture because glaciers are gone would be a disaster for global food production.

There is no such thing as an optimum temperature. There is however a real social, economic, and physical need to address IF MAN IS RESPONSIBLE.

And as far as the decimal percentage of climate change, this was simply statistical propaganda. If you note the only reason the temperature change was a fraction was because he was using the Kelvin temperature scale. It is not a fraction of percent if you use Celsius.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Actually, Kelvin and Celcius would change by the same percentage, since they are the same scale, one just starts 273.15 degrees higher than the other. 1 degree change in C = 1 degree change in K.

[burnt]

"There is no such thing as an optimum temperature. There is however a real social, economic, and physical need to address IF MAN IS RESPONSIBLE."

IF...

Hmm, rather reminds me of a story from long ago:


"Chicken Little

Chicken Little likes to walk in the woods. She likes to look at the trees. She likes to smell the flowers. She likes to listen to the birds singing.

One day while she is walking an acorn falls from a tree, and hits the top of her little head.

- My, oh, my, the sky is falling. I must run and tell the lion about it, - says Chicken Little and begins to run.

She runs and runs. By and by she meets the hen.

- Where are you going? - asks the hen.

- Oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling and I am going to the lion to tell him about it.

- How do you know it? - asks Henny Penny.

- It hit me on the head, so I know it must be so, - says Chicken Little.

- Let me go with you! - says Henny Penny. - Run, run.

So the two run and run until they meet Ducky Lucky.

- The sky is falling, - says Henny Penny. - We are going to the lion to tell him about it.

- How do you know that? - asks Ducky Lucky.

- It hit Chicken Little on the head, - says Henny Penny.

- May I come with you? - asks Ducky Lucky.

- Come, - says Henny Penny.

So all three of them run on and on until they meet Foxey Loxey.

- Where are you going? - asks Foxey Loxey.

- The sky is falling and we are going to the lion to tell him about it, - says Ducky Lucky.

- Do you know where he lives? - asks the fox.

- I don't, - says Chicken Little.

- I don't, - says Henny Penny.

- I don't, - says Ducky Lucky.

- I do, - says Foxey Loxey. - Come with me and I can show you the way.

He walks on and on until he comes to his den.

- Come right in, - says Foxey Loxey.

They all go in, but they never, never come out again."





Optimal temperatures...IF...Foxey Loxey loves misplaced fears...

[burnt]

Or for those who prefer "pictures" to words, Walt showed it this way: