Latest

President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

Dr. Ivar Giaever - climate change

70 Nobel Science Laureates in 2008 stood up to endorse Barack Obama for President – and now Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Ivar Giaever is saying The President is dead wrong about climate change.

According to a recent article in The Daily Caller [1]:

“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Giaever, who won the Nobel for physics in 1973, told an audience at the Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting earlier this month [2].

Giaever ridiculed Obama for stating that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” The physicist called it a “ridiculous statement” and that Obama “gets bad advice” when it comes to global warming.

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said.

Giaever was a professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s School of Engineering and School of Science and received the Nobel Prize for physics for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever said he was “horrified” about the science surrounding global warming when he conducted research on the subject in 2012.

Ironically, just four years earlier he signed a letter with more than 70 other Nobel winners saying the “country urgently needs a visionary leader” and that “Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.” [3]

But by 2011,  Giaever left the American Physical Society because it officially stated that “the evidence is incontrovertible … [g]lobal warming is occurring.” The Society also pushed for reducing greenhouse gas emissions [4].

“Global warming really has become a new religion,” Giaever said. “Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

Giaever argued that there’s been no global warming for the last 17 years or so (based on satellite records), weather hasn’t gotten more extreme and that global temperature has only slightly risen — and that’s based on data being “fiddled” with by scientists, he said.

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever said.

Sources:

[1] http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/07/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-says-obama-is-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

[2] http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/34729/ivar-giaever-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever

[3] http://upstart.bizjournals.com/news/technology/2008/10/29/over-70-nobel-science-laureates-endorse-obama.html?page=all

[4] http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

Royce Christyn
About Royce Christyn (3467 Articles)
Documentarian, Writer, Producer, Director, Author.
  • Tony Thompson

    This man is not a climate scientist. His status as a Nobel Prize winner is irrelevant. As is the fact that he is a physicist. Just as a botanist is not qualified to speak on astrophysics, so too is a physicist not qualified to speak on climate science. The only people who are, are climate scientists. And *they* reached a consensus years ago: anthropogenic global warming is real.

    • phntmdrgn76

      Wow, you obviously don’t know much about physics and all that’s involved with the field. Your statement is literally irrelevant.

      • Aaroƞ Seif

        If you really want to get pedantic… At the heart of it all, every field of the natural sciences is physics, wherein we examine the higher-order effects of the elementary physical interactions. Specializations exist for this reason.
        There’s a similar compartmentalization to the practice of medicine; I certainly wouldn’t want a gynecologist to be diagnosing the source of my neck pain, no matter how much the disciplines overlap.

        • phntmdrgn76

          I wouldn’t want a physicist to have anything to do with my health. However, physicists do work with the physical sciences; chemistry, astrophysics, weather and climate, geology, etc..what exactly is it that you think physicists do, dream about time travel and warp drives? What exactly is it about climate that makes it so hard to cross into? where do you think these “climate scientists” come from? And you shouldn’t mock gynecologists. I’ve had secondhand experience with a gynecologist saving my wife’s life because the “experts” couldn’t tell that she had a softballsized tumor growing on her kidney.

  • Rebecca

    Anymore it seems religion dictates public policy. So if this is the new religion, maybe it should dictate some policy.

  • Gregory Chandler

    The issue is not what President Obama says about climate change. Rather, the issue is what the overwhelming majority of climate scientists think. The experts inform that climate change is real. Giaever needs to hush. Gregory Chandler

    • adam

      Climate Scientist would never say there is no Global Warming/Climate Change…that’s their cash cow. Without the climate changing, we’d have a lot of scientist out of jobs. Whether you believe in it or not, that is the truth. And with prominent scientist, many of which aren’t Climate Scientist either saying the science is settled and stop denying it, I think we should have a group looking at the evidence from outside the Scientist who rely on this to pay their bills. I’m all for being cautious, but really, there are laws and theories in science, climate science is barely fitting of a theory.

      • Elliot Grove

        You do realize that the biggest paycheck, fame, and tenure is waiting for the person who can empirically demonstrate climate change isn’t happening, right?

        The fact that “I won’t trust them because that’s how they make their money” is the dumbest thing I hear on this subject. Next time your plumbing breaks, don’t call a plumber. Because that’s how they make their money.

        • Peter Heerschap

          Elliot, there are thousands of scientists who disagree with global warming, as a matter of fact according to a recent survey of all AMS members,half of them didn’t believe in global warming. There are 30,000 scientists with phds who have signed a petition that says there is no human made global warming. most scientists who dispute global warming end up losing their jobs so they just don’t say anything. They just want more money from the government and it is all one big scam.

          • Andrew

            Your 30,000 phD’s is total BS. On that list are the names of cartoon characters, dead people, and tons of people who know absolutely nothing about climate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html

            Also, the AMS states on their website, ” It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation.” So, everything you said is wrong and a lie.

          • jmac

            I think my cat signed that position. 🙂

        • adam

          I am sure there are several persons holding a contest for proof there is no climate change. Wait, there isn’t? Strange, there goes your premise.

          And your plumber analogy, while I am sure you were giddy with excitement on how clever you were, is not even in the same league. A plumber is a trade job, a good one, but is not reliant on finding a reason to exist. If there isn’t climate change, why do we need climate scientist, at least in the numbers they currently exist?

          • Peter Heerschap

            You know how silly that last statement is? We have climate scientists to study our climate and why it changes. It does not imply that we have global warming. Indeed the climate is changing but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily caused by humans or that it is a bad thing. The earth has been changing for millions of years. There were times when it changed more then others. Did you know that new polls show scientists are starting to doubt man made global warming? in recent years more scientists are now inclined to believe that global warming is caused more by nature then by man. A recent poll done by Princeton showed that only 60% of the scientists they talked to believed humans were responsible for global warming and of course the numbers have been on a downward trend. Did you know that the 97 percent figure was actually a number made up by john kerry which got passed on as being a fact? Of course believe whatever you want.

          • adam

            Ladies and gentlemen, we have a necromancer in the house!

            Why respond 3 weeks late? To get attention? To share your views late with people who honestly Do not care?

            THE WORLD (does not) want to know!!!

        • WhiteEagle

          Your plumber isn’t trying to tax your water.

        • JohnnyLingo62

          Wrong. Those that present contrary evidence to the climate change cult are never published, don’t receive grant money, and are called heretics.
          The climate change cult is a socialist Marxist movement to tax capitalism and control the world by dictating energy allocation.
          Nothing to do about climate, but all about change – world communism.

      • Rick

        Scientists achieve status for the soundness of their methods, not for the political fit of their results. Any accusations to the contrary are slanderous.

        And here you are slandering an entire field of science. Maybe you should consider the possibility that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        Climate denial is the cash cow, not climate science. There is plenty of funding for anybody with even a slight background in science who is willing to parrot the usual b.s. arguments against climate science.

        “The hottest year on record was 17 years ago” is not a scientific argument against the heating trend, not unless you contend that that people in the field have been arguing that every year will be hotter than the previous year, which nobody has been arguing. The year 1998 was exceptionally warm because of an El Nino trend – the general trend towards heating happened to hit a peak cyclical phenomenon. But now the scientists are no longer saying that 1998 was the hottest on record – 2014 was hotter and 2015 looks like it will be hotter still. Will that change the mind of any denialists? No, because they aren’t interest in the process but rather focused on stating the desired result. And they think they inoculate themselves against accusation by accusation by accusing actual scientist of their own two worst flaws: being motivated solely by money and being required to interpret any evidence solely in a prescripted way.

        • adam

          Well, color me slanderous! Tell me, exactly who is making money off of denial?

          Also, just as a note, since you seem to think you have me pegged, I am not a denier, just a believer in science. Speaking of which, I haven’t heard that before. Care to share reference?

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            “Tell me, exactly who is making money off of denial?” Honestly, how can you be such an idiot?? http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html

          • adam

            The idiot is you, Patrick Shoemaker, for necroing a thread long past dead (and for that mullet…ugh!). Just like your argument.

            So, the question is back in your corner: how can YOU be such an idiot? Probably because you like to be a (one would assume since your fantasy-land problems with Kock brothers) liberal conspiracy theorist.

            Carry on and stop wasting resources!

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            You disengage your brain and simply ignore the $ millions spent on climate denial — which so effectively manipulate the ignorant like you. You make middle-school comments on hairstyles and assumed politics. Well, the worldwide scientific community knows it’s happening, the Pentagon knows it’s happening, the insurance companies know it’s happening, but you, a “believer in science” (heh) who wouldn’t know Kirchhoff’s radiation law from the toilet paper you clean your messes with, know otherwise. And to think the American landscape is littered with dickweeds who, just like you, march in lockstep with propaganda produced by people far smarter and richer than you — people who don’t particularly care about the suffering of your kids & grandkids. ‘Cause you’re all ‘good conservatives’? An insult to conservative principles.

          • adam

            Patrick, Patrick, Patrick…such a sad, sad, delusional individual. Nobody cares about you and your opinions. Go back to your Bernie Sanders rallies and leave the real discussion to intelligent adults.

            Or not…it is a free country.

            But for goodness sake, stop pandering your lame thoughts, adding unrelated gobblygook (seriously, Kirchhoff? You are an amusing person) you found on Google…nobody wants to hear it.

            And really, get rid of the mullet. Ugh! So sad.

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            Heh, heh. Look up “Kirchoff’s law of thermal radiation”, and think real hard about how it might be relevant to climate science — you know, the field that you so blitheringly dismiss even though you don’t know jacksquat about it. Oh, and tell me, why IS it that dickweeds think that any head that isn’t shaved in back like a baboon’s ass is a “mullet”? You need to look to fellow dickweeds for true mullets, bro.

          • adam

            Just because you have a Google U diploma doean’the mean you know anything. Except to assume people don’the know something. Really, you are a sad individual. I pity you.

            Something else for you, although I doubt you’ll understand; when you start calling people names, you lost the argument. So, looking back, your position is so weak you started with the name calling. Yet another reason, other than your hair, to pity you.

            Don’the bother replying unless you actually have something intelligent to say with an adult.

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            OK, you want an ‘adult’ reply without name-calling, fair enough — although it kind of seems warranted when one is faced with the combination of arrogant condescension and ignorance that you dish out. My point: yes, you are ignorant. Very easy to tell from your sneering dismissal of Kirchhoff’s radiation law. If you had some clue what you were talking about, you’d know how it is fundamental to understanding the radiative physics of CO2 in the upper atmosphere — on which AGW theory is based. But you couldn’t give a scientifically cogent critique of AGW theory, or the empirical evidence that supports it, if your life depended on it. You are manipulated by the fossil fuel industry propaganda (although you also sneeringly dismiss the very idea), and you haven’t got the objectivity to examine the topic critically.

            So yeah, as a citizen with a background in science who’s taken the time to understand the theory and the evidence, as well as the efforts to discredit it, I do tend to get irritated with people like you. You’re carrying water for people far richer and smarter than you. I get it; you don’t; but still you blather on about how ‘sad’ I am.

          • adam

            Actually, just like everyone else, I don’t particularly care about you at all. You opinion, which you decided to blather on the internet, is bland and typical of a loon. You have no real platform so you come here for attention.

            Don’t go away mad…just fade away into obscurity.

        • adam

          Hmmm…nothing from Rick. Just another drive-by opinion guy. Thanks for playing!

    • Easygoer13

      Gregeory What a foolish statement. More and more honest people of sicinece are coming out daily and saying the same thing. Global warming or what ever new title you want to use is a scam, a farce. It is not that climate change is not real it is just that it is nothing new and we can do very little to alter it.

      • Gregory Chandler

        Those people are coming out means that 80% still believe in climate change. Gregory Chandler

        • Easygoer13

          I think that means little to nothing. How many voted for the war on Iraq would do so today.
          It was and always had been a scam issue. Like planes falling from the sky when the new millennium came. It is the very same type of thing that has enriched the life’s of a select few.

  • Allara2

    How much did the Koch Brothers and the Regressive (R) party pay him to say this.

    • adam

      Nice…call a guy a shill with no proof. Who knows, maybe he’s right? Thing is, he is pretty smart (most likely smarter than the climate scientist) and has nothing riding on there being no climate change. Every last Climate Scientist’s job is moot if there is no change.

      • Mannik

        It doesn’t matter how smart he is. What matters is his evidence, of which to date he has produced none.

        “Every last Climate Scientist’s job is moot if there is no change.”

        This is false. Climatology goes on whether AGCC is real or not. There’s still plenty to learn about the Earth’s climate. The field existed before AGCC became a concern, and will exist after it ceases to be a concern, supposing we aren’t all dead or reduced to an agrarian state.

        • adam

          The field actually began at the same time at about the same time.

          I agree abou t him not producing his evidence. He needs to produce it for sure. Otherwise, his claims are een more unbelievable as the climate scientists.

          • Ken Kruse

            adam wrote; “The field actually began at the same time at about the same time”

            Although, as written, the statement is rather incomprehensible, I think I understand what you were meaning to say. My best guess is that you were saying that the field began at about the same time that the belief of climate change began. That is about as wrong as you can be. Climatology simply means the study of climate. Early climate researchers include Edmund Halley, who published a map of the trade winds in 1686 after a voyage to the southern hemisphere.

            The argument about climate change rarely involves whether it’s real because almost everyone agrees it is. The only real debate is whether it is man-made and/or whether we can do anything to prevent it from getting worse.

          • adam

            Big fingers, little buttons on phone. Essentially, you got my point.

            Of course climate change is real. Man made, maybe…maybe not. All things should be studied and looked at with all the data. And all the data does not say it is fact.

      • Ken Kruse

        Nice ……accuse a whole community of scientists of being self serving thief’s with no proof! Who knows, maybe they’re right? Thing is, they’re a smart group of people (not necessarily dumber than Giaever (unless it happens to support your argument)). For the vast majority of scientists from every field of science (many of whom are Nobel winners themselves) to be ignored simply based on a few comments by a few fringe scientists would irresponsible at minimum.

        To believe a whole community of scientists are lying to save their jobs is incomprehensible.

        To believe a few industrialists are distorting the facts and manipulating the truth in the name of profits is not that far fetched if one looks back in history.

        I’ll finish this comment with a quote from one of the greatest minds of our times, if you prefer to believe a celebrated physicist how about this;

        “As Stephen Hawking celebrates his 70th birthday he warns that climate change is one of a greatest threats posed to the future of human-kind and the world “

        • adam

          Did you do that? I sure did not. Stop trying to put words in others mouths, ok?

      • Annalisa

        He’s currently at the Heartland Institute: https://www.heartland.org/ivar-giaever – which is one of the Koch brothers interests: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute

        • adam

          So, that’s what you consider proof?Waste of time.

  • Maggotpunk

    That’s just like, his opinion man.

  • rb763

    I’m willing to believe in man-caused global warming. I just wonder how much of it is caused by scientists flying to and from climate-change conferences.

  • Chisna

    Was there a slow down in the rate of warming since the El Nino of 1998 ? Yes…..
    Did the oceans continue to take up heat ? Yes…. Is that heat going to be released
    back into the atmosphere during the current El Nino we are experiencing ? Yes….
    Perhaps this physicist is having a difficult time grasping all of the variables involved when it comes to climate change ?
    I do believe he is…. But why does he feel it’s necessary to politicize the issue instead of debating his side and presenting us with his theory ?

  • Patrick Shoemaker

    No mention made of the 35 Nobel laureates at the same meeting who endorsed the mainstream science behind AGW? No? Of course not….

  • Biologyteacher100

    Pretty common to see one outlier in any group. In this case one Nobel laureate doesn’t understand the scientific evidence while the other 37 or so do and supported strong actions on climate change.

  • travelfish91911

    Dr. Ivar Giaever is an ass

  • Easygoer13

    Climate change is akin to saying water is wet. Yes there is climate change today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow. It has always changed and will always continue to do so. The foolish think we can have a genuine influence over it are either self serving or parroting the misinformation of others as a vogue thing to do.