Nobel Prize-winning scientist says Obama is ‘dead wrong’ on global warming

[jsn112]

Nobel Prize-winning scientist says Obama is ‘dead wrong’ on global warming:

In 2008, Dr. Ivar Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Barack Obama for president, but seven years later the Nobel Prize winner now stands against the president on global warming.
“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.
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. [...]


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...t-says-obama-is-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

 

[Belk]

Nobel Prize-winning scientist says Obama is ‘dead wrong’ on global warming:

In 2008, Dr. Ivar Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Barack Obama for president, but seven years later the Nobel Prize winner now stands against the president on global warming.
“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.
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. [...]


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...t-says-obama-is-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

Uh... He is a physicist who shared a Nobel prize in physics for tunneling phenomena in solids. He has no expertise in Climate studies so why should his opinion outweigh that of all the climate scientists who say climate change is an issue?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

The guy has some really lunatic statements in the transcript I read (the only video I can find plays about 1 second of video for every 10 seconds of buffering).

“No one mentions how important CO2 is for plant growth. It’s a wonderful thing. Plants are really starving. They don’t talk about how good it is for agriculture that CO2 is increasing"

"If you want to help Africa, help them out of poverty, do not try to build solar cells and windmills. Are you wasting money on solar cells and windmills rather than helping people? These people have been misled. It costs money in the end to that. Windmills cost money.”


Dude's gone 'round the twist.

 

[jsn112]

Uh... He is a physicist who shared a Nobel prize in physics for tunneling phenomena in solids. He has no expertise in Climate studies so why should his opinion outweigh that of all the climate scientists who say climate change is an issue?

Soooo... when he signed that letter (http://upstart.bizjournals.com/news...science-laureates-endorse-obama.html?page=all) with more than 70 other Nobel winners endorsing Obama on climate, are you saying the other 69 Nobels have no expertise in climate as well? Because A LOT of those Nobels are not climate scientists either, but they still endorsed the climate change agenda. So which is it? Are these scientists telling the truth or have they lied to you, and you bit on it, hook, line and sinker?

 

[jsn112]

The guy has some really lunatic statements in the transcript I read (the only video I can find plays about 1 second of video for every 10 seconds of buffering).

“No one mentions how important CO2 is for plant growth. It’s a wonderful thing. Plants are really starving. They don’t talk about how good it is for agriculture that CO2 is increasing"

"If you want to help Africa, help them out of poverty, do not try to build solar cells and windmills. Are you wasting money on solar cells and windmills rather than helping people? These people have been misled. It costs money in the end to that. Windmills cost money.”


Dude's gone 'round the twist.

Windmill and solar are many times less efficient than fossil fuel. How is he wrong? BTW, I am with a government agency who did R&D on this and I can verify with the guy's statement. It's more costly to have windmill and solar, because you would still need fossil fuel generators as a backup (100%) on those days that are not sunny or windy. So you actually are paying for two. I can go on and on... But you get the idea.

 

[Belk]

Soooo... when he signed that letter (http://upstart.bizjournals.com/news...science-laureates-endorse-obama.html?page=all) with more than 70 other Nobel winners endorsing Obama on climate, are you saying the other 69 Nobels have no expertise in climate as well? Because A LOT of those Nobels are not climate scientists either, but they still endorsed the climate change agenda. So which is it? Are these scientists telling the truth or have they lied to you, and you bit on it, hook, line and sinker?

I have no idea if the other 69 have climate expertise or not, do you? You see when I look to a scientist I look for their views on the areas, not just some random appeal to authority that aligns with my own opinion. So I ask again, why should this persons opinion on an area outside his expertise outweigh that of those who contradict him inside his area of expertise?

 

[St_Worm2]

Bjorn Lomborg's 2010 documentary, Cool It, is worth checking out. Here's the movie trailer.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Why is it never a climate scientist exposing climate science as wrong?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Windmill and solar are many times less efficient than fossil fuel. How is he wrong? BTW, I am with a government agency who did R&D on this and I can verify with the guy's statement. It's more costly to have windmill and solar, because you would still need fossil fuel generators as a backup (100%) on those days that are not sunny or windy. So you actually are paying for two. I can go on and on... But you get the idea.

A little energy from a solar- or wind- powered generator is better than having a fossil fuel plant that you can't afford fuel for.

 

[nightflight]

Scientist is probably racist.

 

[St_Worm2]

Why is it never a climate scientist exposing climate science as wrong?

Perhaps for the same reason that, on the flip-side, no climate scientist had ever been able to do what Al Gore did?

 

[Belk]

Perhaps for the same reason that, on the flip-side, no climate scientist had ever been able to do what Al Gore did?

Make a movie?

 

[jsn112]

I have no idea if the other 69 have climate expertise or not, do you? You see when I look to a scientist I look for their views on the areas, not just some random appeal to authority that aligns with my own opinion. So I ask again, why should this persons opinion on an area outside his expertise outweigh that of those who contradict him inside his area of expertise?

Why don't you click on the letter link I provided and scroll down and see the list of names and their fields. Tell me how many of those are in the field of "climate scientist?" Try none, zero, zilch, nada, 0.

 

[Goonie]

Just a reminder that since there is no nobel prize for climate science, so inevitably extremely few nobel prize winners with a background in the subject. What is interesting is that almost all climate scientists have come to the conclusion that humanity is adversely affecting the climate, through greenhouse gases and destruction of the environment.

 

[jsn112]

Why is it never a climate scientist exposing climate science as wrong?

Never? Really? Joe Bastardi or former NASA scientist, Les Woodcock, don't count? There are more.

 

[jsn112]

Just a reminder that since there is no nobel prize for climate science, so inevitably extremely few nobel prize winners with a background in the subject. What is interesting is that almost all climate scientists have come to the conclusion that humanity is adversely affecting the climate, through greenhouse gases and destruction of the environment.

But so is my flatulent causing adverse affect on climate. I am sure almost all climate scientists would agree with that too.

 

[Goonie]

But so is my flatulent causing adverse affect on climate. I am sure almost all climate scientists would agree with that too.

Well it is true that methane from cows, and other domesticated animals is a significant greenhouse gas.

 

[St_Worm2]

Make a movie?

- No, make climate change a global concern that is at the forefront of most people's minds and in doing so, convince them that they need to do something about it.

Lomborg agrees that global warming is a reality that we must be fully committed to dealing with. What he doesn't agree with is the 'way' we're going about it because 1) what we're doing will never get the job done, not even close and 2) what we're doing will create many other kinds of huge problems for us. He's talking about spending the same amount of money to fix climate change, about $250,000,000,000 per year, but spending the money in ways that will actually solve the problem.

 

[Belk]

Why don't you click on the letter link I provided and scroll down and see the list of names and their fields. Tell me how many of those are in the field of "climate scientist?" Try none, zero, zilch, nada, 0.

Because I do not care about the opinion of these scientists who are not relevant to the study of the climate. Does not change anything about the question I asked that you still have not answered. Why should I take this persons word over the word of scientists who study this area?

 

[St_Worm2]

Because I do not care about the opinion of these scientists who are not relevant to the study of the climate. Does not change anything about the question I asked that you still have not answered. Why should I take this persons word over the word of scientists who study this area?

How about looking into the data he presents and see what you think? The scientists from MIT, Princeton, and elsewhere on his documentary seem to think he is probably on the right track. They certainly agree that the approach we are taking now is not the solution, either short-term or long-term.