<p>“You probably sit around with your buddies making jokes about Lorentz transformations over a cold one on weekends, right?”</p>
<p>Actually we tell jokes about non - inertial reference frames.</p>
<p>There you go. ;)</p>
<p>[New</a> atlas shows extent of climate change | Environment | guardian.co.uk](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/15/new-atlas-climate-change]New”>New atlas shows extent of climate change | Climate crisis | The Guardian)</p>
<p>[Climate</a> Reality](<a href=“http://climaterealityproject.org/]Climate”>http://climaterealityproject.org/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point? Hmm… probably a good idea to go back and look at one of your points, kluge:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm… the “deniers” are the scientifically ignorant, right? Have to be, because you’ve said so many times it must be true, right? </p>
<p>I guess my point is that (until you try another tack) it looks like you’re claiming a tiny minority, composed of only the ignorant, are superior to a horde of ambitious geniuses, each intent on adding, oh, about 6" to their professional heigth, girth, stature… whatever it is that they feel may make life a little richer.</p>
<p>[Nobel</a> Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News](<a href=“Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News”>Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News)</p>
<p>[Ivar</a> Giaever](<a href=“http://www.desmogblog.com/ivar-giaever]Ivar”>http://www.desmogblog.com/ivar-giaever)</p>
<p>Catahoula…if this is the best you got…you got nothing…</p>
<p>"Giaever and Climate*Science</p>
<p>Giaever’s climate science resume is limited to serving on a climate change discussion panel at the 51st convention of Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine.* At the convention, Giaever stated he is skeptical of the importance of the issue of global*warming.</p>
<p>Giaever also stated that he is unsure if the global committment to implement more energy efficient technology is a possibility. He cited the lack of action and change since the Kyoto*agreement:</p>
<p>“I don’t see much change in these years when we were supposed to have done something about this already. If we were really serious about this thing why don’t we talk about nuclear power?”
He has been quoted as saying that “global warming has become a new religion” and that “there are better ways to spend the money” than on climate*policy.</p>
<p>Giaever as a “Global Warming Expert”</p>
<p>Now in his late 70s, Giaever remains on the Heartland Institute’s list of “global warming experts.”* The Heartland Institute has recieved over $270,000 from Philip Morris USA and $676,500 from Exxonmobil between 1998 and 2006 while denying the existence of anthropogenic (man-made) climate*change.</p>
<p>Giaver and the CATO*Institute</p>
<p>Ivar Giaver’s name appears on a full-page ad funded by the CATO institute that was featured in numerous newspapers including the Washington PostNew York Times and the Chicago Tribune in 2009.</p>
<p>The advertisement refutes President Obama’s declaration that “few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.” And describes how “there has been no net global warming for over a decade,” and that global warming is “grossly*overstated.”</p>
<p>The Cato Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, and lists Phillip Morris as one of its “national allies.” They have also received undisclosed amounts of funding from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Koch Family Foundations."</p>
<p>Talk about being on the take…</p>
<p>
I must confess, I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Maybe you could try to be a little more straightforward in what you’re saying.</p>
<p>Geez, dstark… the only way I could feel worse about posting that link was if you’d pointed out he was lawyer before he was taken in by a coven of independent stock investors and home-schooled to the point he could pass his GED. lol, lol.</p>
<p>A Nobel prize - from back before they started handing them out for political ends - doesn’t mean much when you can call him a tool of not only big oil, but a near cousin to a tobacco lawyer. Nope, not at all, not to to boutique science aficionados anyway.</p>
<p>Catahoula…he was a mediocre student.</p>
<p>I guess you don’t really care that he is bought. Kind of makes your other arguments ring hollow. But then…we already knew that. ;)</p>
<p>kluge:</p>
<p>I bet when you finally come up with that validated temperature prediction you spoke so highly of, way back in post… I’ve forgotten exactly which one, but I’m sure you haven’t… and can devote your full attention to my last, you’ll be confused no longer.</p>
<p>Catahoula, this is a guy who never worked in any area even remotely related to climate science, who, at the age of 82, is pimping his award in support of an ideological position for which he doesn’t claim to have performed any research. At least Linus Puling didn’t push Vitamin C for the money in his dotage.</p>
<p>It’s sad, and the people who are capitalizing on him should be ashamed.</p>
<p>A mediocre student? You’re holding out on your reading list then, dstark, because the “DeSmogBlog”, mission statement below…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>didn’t really cover his education, other than that they were pained he wasn’t a climate scientist, and only a Noble winning physicist, instead.</p>
<p>Like your sources, btw, as always.</p>
<p>Catahoula…I don’t make S… up.</p>
<p>[Ivar</a> Giaever](<a href=“http://www.nndb.com/people/884/000099587/]Ivar”>Ivar Giaever)</p>
<p>But like i said …you don’t really care if somebody is bought.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For shame, kluge… pulling out that age card once again. Good thing you’re a 27 year old buck, in the prime of his cognitive life.</p>
<p>I’m assuming that temp prediction you’re fond of is hidden somewhere in the above. Pretty neat - I’ll have my fourth year Math/Stats son find it for me, when he comes home tomorrow evening.:)</p>
<p>No, dstark, I really do like your sources, truly I do. Always have. </p>
<p>As I do the argument that some amount of corporate money is more corrupting that 100 times that of taxpayer money.</p>
<p>[LGF</a> Pages - My response to Ivar Giaever: Sell out or senile](<a href=“http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/257746_My_response_to_Ivar_Giaever-_S]LGF”>My response to Ivar Giaever: Sell out or senile - LGF Pages)</p>
<p>"Ivar Giaever was once a great physicist. He made a very public spectacle of resigning from APS over the word “incontrovertible” in its position statement on AGW. He phrases it in high and mighty language about how science does not consider anything incontrovertible.</p>
<p>This is a nuanced and artful dodge. He does not come out and deny the science itself - but he directly undermines the results none the less. This way he gets to create propaganda without openly saying something scientific that can be directly disproved. Instead, he makes a “principled” stand on the grounds of philosophy pointed at propaganda even though Ivar knows that there are many incontrovertible things in science.</p>
<p>Consider the roundness of the Earth. This was once open for debate. Is it now? Is that incontrovertible? Consider the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun (also once a topic of intense debate). Nothing will ever change those things. No new discovery will invalidate them without invalidating essentially all other human scientific knowledge. The same can be said for relativity, the fact that CO2 absorbs IR in certain bands, the fact that energy is conserved and the fact that ice melts when it gets hot. Perhaps there is room to doubt that atoms are real (in a physical as opposed to philosophical way) also?</p>
<p>Ivar, of course knows that he is on shaky ground even from a purely philosophical point of view. The best he can do from his stance is make a lame argument based on Cartesian Doubt… Yes, Ivar, in that context, nothing can ever be proven… and while we are at it, all of reality could be the dream of the blue turtle. Scientists who believe that truly then should have no reason to take data on anything. So, if you truly think that way, why did you ever bother doing physics for your career?"</p>
<p>Some people sell out for so little.</p>
<p>It does surprise me.</p>
<p>[LGF</a> Pages - Ivar Giaever’s links to Exxon Mobil, Heartland, Cato etc…](<a href=“http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/257775_Ivar_Giaevers_links_to_Exxon_M]LGF”>Ivar Giaever's links to Exxon Mobil, Heartland, Cato etc... - LGF Pages)</p>
<p>"What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?</p>
<p>At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking – if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper."</p>
<p>Really, there is nothing that’s incontrovertible in empirical science. Perhaps it’s never been shown to be untrue, and perhaps it’s such an easy result of so widely accepted a scientific theory that serious scientists don’t spend their time verifying it, but none of that means it’s true. The existence of God is incontrovertible, for instance, but not because it’s definitely true or false. To say something is incontrovertible is really to say that it falls outside the scope of scientific inquiry, and in a way, to undermine its scientific importance.</p>
<p>Your post #169 identifies you as a great man of science and religious theory. ^^^^.</p>
<p>Doesn’t take a great man to realize post #169 doesn’t have anything to do with the validity or seriousness of my last post. If anything, an inability to recognize humor and a predisposition to fallacious argumentation may be signs of a little mind.</p>