The story

Ivar Giaver

Ivar Giaver

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Ivar Giaever was born in Bergen, Norway, on 5th April, 1929. He studied electrical engineering at the Norwegian Institute of Technology before moving to Canada where he worked as a mechanical engineer with the General Electric Company.

Giaever emigrated to the United States in 1956 where he did graduate work at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York. He became a naturalized United States citizen in 1964. Giaever's work on tunnelling and superconductivity won him the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973.

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize. Giaever is also featured in the new documentary “Climate Hustle”, set for release in Fall 2015.

Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”

But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”

“That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)

“How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.

“Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [ Note : Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change. See: Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming]

“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 explained.

Global Warming ‘a new religion’

Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.

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

Concern Over ‘Successful’ UN Climate Treaty

“I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November. I really worry about that. Because the [2009 UN] conference was in Copenhagen and that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position,” Giaever said.

“The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.

“I would say that the global warming is basically a non-problem. Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. It is almost very hard for me to understand why almost every government in Europe — except for Polish government — is worried about global warming. It must be politics.”

“So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue with one exception — we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming. We have to do that or that may take us backwards. People think that is sustainable but it is not sustainable.

On Global Temperatures & CO2

Giaever noted that global temperatures have halted for the past 18 plus years. [Editor’s Note: Climate Depot is honored that Giaever used an exclusive Climate Depot graph showing the RSS satellite data of an 18 year plus standstill in temperatures at 8:48 min. into video.]

Giaever accused NASA and federal scientists of “fiddling” with temperatures.

“They can fiddle with the data. That is what NASA does.”

“You cannot believe the people — the alarmists — who say CO2 is a terrible thing. Its not true, its absolutely not true,” Giaever continued while showing a slide asking: ‘Do you believe CO2 is a major climate gas?’

“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.

“How can you possibly measure the average temperature for the whole earth and come up with a fraction of a degree. I think the average temperature of earth is equal to the emperor’s new clothes. How can you think it can measure this to a fraction of a degree? It’s ridiculous,” he added.

Ivar Giaever and King Carl Gustaf at the Nobel Prize ceremony in Stockholm in December 1973

Silencing Debate

Giaever accused Nature Magazine of “wanting to cash in on the [climate] fad.”

“My friends said I should not make fun of Nature because then they won’t publish my papers,” he explained.

“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,” he added.

Extreme Weather claims

“The other thing that amazes me is that when you talk about climate change it is always going to be the worst. It’s got to be better someplace for heaven’s sake. It can’t always be to the worse,” he said.

“Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said.

“For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm — but for the previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level,” Giaever said.

“If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued.

“You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added.

Physicist Giaever in 1973

“What people say is not true. I spoke to a journalist with [German newspaper Die Welt yesterday…and I asked how many articles he published that says global warming is a good thing. He said I probably don’t publish them at all. Its always a negative. Always,” Giever said.

Energy Poverty

“They say refugees are trying to cross the Mediterranean. These people are not fleeing global warming, they are fleeing poverty,” he noted.

“If you want to help Africa, help them out of poverty, do not try to build solar cells and windmills,” he added.

“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.”

“Cheap energy is what made us so rich and now suddenly people don’t want it anymore.”

“People say oil companies are the big bad people. I don’t understand why they are worse than the windmill companies. General Electric makes windmills. They don’t tell you that they are not economical because they make money on it. But nobody protests GE, but they protest Exxon who makes oil,” he noted.

Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears.

Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot’s more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared. I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.

Giaever also told the New York Times in 2010 that global warming “can’t be discussed — just like religion…there is NO unusual rise in the ocean level, so what where and what is the big problem?”

Related Links:

On Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 36 signed the declaration. As is typical of the suppression of the alternate views on climate, we never heard the opinion of the 35 who were in the [nearly equal] majority. Today, one of the Nobel laureates who was an attendee has spoken out.

Exclusive: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming – Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’

2012: Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Ivar Giaever: ‘Is climate change pseudoscience?…the answer is: absolutely’ — Derides global warming as a ‘religion’ – ‘He derided the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri a peace prize, and called agreement with the evidence of climate change a ‘religion’… the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case: “What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”

When Science IS Fiction: Nobel Physics laureate Ivar Giaever has called global warming (aka. climate change) a ‘new religion’ -When scientists emulate spiritual prophets, they overstep all ethical bounds. In doing so, they forfeit our confidence’

American Physical Society Statement on Climate Change: No Longer ‘Incontrovertible,’ But Still Unacceptable – Because of the following statement from the American Physical Society: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

Giaver: “I resigned from the society in 2011. First: nothing in science is incontrovertible. Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim it has become warmer, why is everything better than before? Forth: the maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago. When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?”

4 Answers 4

Ivar's graph is mischievous in trying to imply that there should be an exact correlation. The global air temperature is not a good parameter to chart against CO2 emissions because the increasing heat doesn't just warm up the air. Most of the heat goes into warming the upper layers of the oceans, but it is not a linear relationship. The ratio of air and ocean warming varies massively with the state of ocean current, in which El Nino is just the largest of several ocean oscillations. If, instead of graphing the global air temperature, he graphed the global heat absorbtion, he would have arrived at a much more uniform relationship to greenhouse gas emissions. Ivar is an engineer and a physicist, not a climate scientist, and his inability (or unwillingness) to look at the holistic picture makes me doubt his climate change credentials.

Temperature differences y/y are very small compared to natural variation during the year

This is only saying that we have a large seasonal cycle. It says nothing about low-frequency variations. Once you remove seasonal effects, the centennial scale warming is obvious and nearly ubiquitous (yes, a handful of regions have been cooling recently, but the vast majority are warming).

The correlation between CO2 emissions and measured temperature changes is not perfect.

Who expects it to be perfect? Certainly not climate scientists, for the reasons stated above and also here. This is a textbook example of a straw man, used ubiquitously by people who cannot make real arguments (like climate "skeptics")

Temperature differences y/y are very small compared to natural variation during the year, and the trend we see could be statistical illusion, especially that the scientists who developed the method were looking to demonstrate exactly that sort of trend.

Fortunately statisticians have developed tests to determine whether the evidence for a warming trend is "statistically significant" (i.e. the probability of observing a trend as great as that seen if it was just a statistical illusion is below some pre-determined threshold). This is basic STATS 101 stuff. If you pick a trend length above the WMO recommended minimum of 30 years (i.e. a period long enough to expect the trend to be detectable given the noise - in other words the test has reasonable statistical power) then the evidence for a warming trend is indeed statistically significant.

The correlation between CO2 emissions and measured temperature changes is not perfect.

Well of course not, because CO2 is not the only thing that influences global surface temperatures, for instance volcanic forcing, aerosols, solar forcing etc. You would only expect a "perfect" correlation if CO2 were the only thing affecting GMSTs and there was no "weather noise", for instance ENSO changing the distribution of heat between the atmosphere and oceans.

Ivar has been rather naughty in his diagram, you can get a better visual correlation by rescaling the graphs:

Sadly only has the Mauna Loa data, but you get the idea, if someone is claiming that the correlation isn't very good and don't plot the data in a way that maximises the apparent correlation, then that should ring alarm bells!

I suspect the correlation with total heat content (dominated by ocean heat content) is likely to be rather better (as increased radiative forcing heats the oceans as well as the atmosphere, so you need to consider them both together).

The Nobel Prize

The work that led to Giaever's Nobel Prize was performed at General Electric in 1960. Following on Esaki's discovery of electron tunnelling in semiconductors in 1958, Giaever showed that tunnelling also took place in superconductors, demonstrating tunnelling through a very thin layer of oxide surrounded on both sides by metal in a superconducting or normal state. Γ] Giaever's experiments demonstrated the existence of an energy gap in superconductors, one of the most important predictions of the BCS theory of superconductivity, which had been developed in 1957. Δ] Giaever's experimental demonstration of tunnelling in superconductors stimulated the theoretical physicist Brian Josephson to work on the phenomenon, leading to his prediction of the Josephson effect in 1962. Esaki and Giaever shared half of the 1973 Nobel Prize, and Josephson received the other half. Ώ]

Giaever's research later in his career was mainly in the field of biophysics. In 1969, he researched Biophysics for a year as a fellow at Clare Hall, University of Cambridge, through a Guggenheim Fellowship, and he continued to work in this area after he returned to the US. Β]

He has co-signed a letter from over 70 Nobel laureate scientists to the Louisiana Legislature supporting the repeal of Louisiana’s Louisiana Science Education Act. Ε]

Ivar Giaever

Dr. Giaever has advanced the field of physics in the area of superconductors, thin films, and biophysics.


Ivar Giaever was born in Bergen, Norway, April 5, 1929, the second of three children. He grew up in Toten where his father was a pharmacist. He was graduated from the Norwegian Institute of Technology in 1952 with a degree in mechanical engineering. In 1953, Giaever completed his military duty as a corporal in the Norwegian Army, and thereafter he was employed for a year as a patent examiner for the Norwegian Government.

Giaever emigrated to Canada in 1954 and after a short period as an architect's aide he joined Canadian General Electric's Advanced Engineering Program. In 1956, he emigrated to the USA where he completed GE’s A, B, and C engineering courses and then worked in various assignments as an applied mathematician. He joined the GE Research and Development Center in Niskayuna, NY, Schenectady County, in 1958 and concurrently began graduate study at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Troy, NY, where he earned his Ph.D. degree in physics in 1964. He became a naturalized US citizen the same year.

From 1958 to 1969 Dr. Giaever worked in the fields of thin films, tunneling and superconductivity. In 1965 he was awarded the Oliver E. Buckley Prize for some pioneering work combining tunneling and superconductivity. In 1969 he received a Guggenheim Fellowship and thereupon spent one year in Cambridge, England studying biophysics. Since returning to the Research and Development Center in 1970, Dr. Giaever has spent most of his effort studying the behavior of protein molecules at solid surfaces. In recognition of his work he was elected a Coolidge fellow at General Electric in May, 1973.

While working as a physicist at the R&D Center in Niskayuna in 1960, four years before earning his doctorate, Ivar Giaever conceived the idea of using electron tunneling to measure the energy gap in a superconductor. This technique, disclosed in a pathbreaking paper, both provided a new method for studying superconductivity and opened the possibility of a new class of electronic devices. The importance of the work was highlighted by the award of a 1973 Nobel Prize, shared with Leo Esaki and Brian D. Josephson.

Below: Video: Dr. Giaever explains how Quantum Tunneling Works

"The Nobel Prize is the highest honor that a scientist can receive, and we are delighted that the Nobel Committee has this year recognized Dr. Giaever's outstanding contributions to the study of phenomena that occur at temperatures near absolute zero," said Dr. Arthur M. Bueche, GE vice president for research and development. "The only other GE scientist to receive a Nobel Prize was the late Dr. Irving Langmuir, who won the award for chemistry in 1932," Dr. Bueche pointed out. GE Chairman of the Board Reginald H. Jones said that it was highly appropriate that today, October 23rd, 1973, was the 100th birthday of one of GE’s greatest scientists, Dr. William D. Coolidge, who also lived in Niskayuna.

Dr. Giaever is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and of the Biophysical Society, and he is a Fellow of the American Physical Society. In addition to his position as Institute Professor of Engineering and Science at RPI, Dr. Giaever is professor at large at the University of Oslo in Norway and is also president of the Applied BioPhysics Institute in Troy, NY, near RPI.

At the time of his Nobel award and to the present day, Dr. Giaever and his wife Inger have lived in Niskayuna. Shortly after GE held its recognition reception, the Niskayuna Town Supervisor, Dr. Edwin D. Reilly, declared an “Ivar Giaever Day” in his honor. Dr. Reilly had studied under the same professors at RPI as had Dr. Giaever, but received his Ph.D. in physics five years later. But although they lived less than a mile apart, they had not met until they discovered that they had both written letters on the same subject that appeared in the same issue of Physics Today. Upon notification of his town’s proclamation, Dr. Giaever called the Supervisor and said, “Thanks, Ed, but tell me. Exactly what does one do on Ivar Giaever Day?”

Back to the Engineering Hall of Fame

General Electric

Interview with Ivar Giaever. Edison Tech Center. 2007
Edwin Reilly Jr.

If you are a historian and wish to correct facts or publish a commentary or embedded article feel free to contact us.

Image Use:
Photos:: Permission and fees are required for use of photos in printed or internet publications.

Educational Use:: Students and teachers may use photos and videos at school. Graphics and photos must retain the Edison Tech Center watermark or captions and remain unmanipulated except for sizing.

Ivar Giaver - History

Earlier today, I wrote that Ivar Giaever was either a sell out or senile with his recent very public exit from the American Physical Society over AGW. I argued that for a man of his scientific stature to say the propaganda he has been saying, he had to be either on the take (paid for by the usual suspects like the Kochs and Exxon) or senile. This is because the science of AGW really is that sound. Having someone of his stature come out against it the way he has is like a respected rabbi suddenly arguing that pig is kosher. Something had to be up.

He was on the take and now I am going to prove it.

Here he is on the Heartland Institute’s list of experts.

The Heartland Institute is a front for creating and legitimatising right wing propaganda paid for by people like Exxon Mobil and Phillip Morris. They have a tremendous history of denying all sorts of science, like the notion that cigarettes cause cancer. You can also see him listed by them here:

If you continue looking down that list you can find well known “cigarettes are OK” activist and professional climate denier, Richard Lindzen, and Bjorn Lomborg as well. Amongst some of Heartland’s and co group Heritage Foundation’s more interesting stances, in addition to the usual climate denial and false ecological data has been a defence of US business use of overseas child and slave labor.

Gaiever also appeared on a full page ad denying climate change funded by the Cato institute.

The Cato Institute is funded by ExxonMobil, Phillip Morris the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Koch Family Foundations.

All of these groups have vast amounts of money poured into them by fossil fuel interests who want the science of climate quashed. They want it quashed because if people took it seriously and the coming catastrophe of unmitigated climate change seriously, then people would use other sources of energy than fossil fuels. It is all about lying for money at the expense of future generations and even our own. These groups get the false science they are paid to produce and then propagandise it.

Some might think that this does not prove a sell out - only a collaboration with these groups. That would require believing that a well known scientist with no history of climate research of his own comes out with a list of wingnut talking points that are easily scientifically refuted just because of the goodness of his heart - because he believes his contrary “science” so much that he had to speak out - but he does not bother to publish a single paper on the topic that can be peer reviewed.

If he truly had some data to take down climate science, he would publish it somewhere. But he hasn’t.

Of course he is getting paid. Of course Heartland pays its “experts.” There is no other motivation for a respected scientist to act so unscientifically and tarnish an otherwise sterling reputation.

From Real Climate… hat tip to PublicityStunted

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.

So we know what happened then. Ivar sold out. He sold out his name. He sold out physics. He sold out science. He sold out his posterity. He sold out you and me and all our kids.

Proof was in the pudding. If a major rabbi were to come out and say suddenly that he was withdrawing from a yeshiva because they kept insisting that pig was not kosher, there are really only three possibilities.

1. His family were held hostage and he was being black-mailed.
2. He went crazy.
3. He sold out.

I don't know which is worse in that hypothetical case. But in the case of Ivar, it is apparent that he sold out, and it is just as terrible.

Sorry, I don't see any proof here that he took money from either the Cato Institute or the Heartland Institute. A collaborator, sure. Paid? Maybe. But I don't see any proof provided by Ludwig.

Btw, his climate change denial seems to go back at least to 2008, according to Wikipedia.

Sure, a well known scientist with no history of climate research of his own comes out with a list of wingnut talking points that are easily scientifically refuted just because of the goodness of his heart - but does not bother to publish a single paper on the topic that can be peer reviewed. If he truly had some data to take down climate science, he would publish it somewhere. But he doesn't. Of course he is getting paid.

It's extremely naive to think he wasn't paid, given facts such as this:

Real Climate blog on Heartland conference
"What if you held a conference and no (real) scientists came?". Real Climate blog on the invite to the Heartland 08 conference, confirming what speakers were paid ($1000 each) and that their travel and accommodation would also be paid by Heartland.

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.

Excellent post! You are on fire tonight.

Added that to my post with a hat tip to you.

Sure, a well known scientist with no history of climate research of his own comes out with a list of wingnut talking points that are easily scientifically refuted just because of the goodness of his heart - but does not bother to publish a single paper on the topic that can be peer reviewed. If he truly had some data to take down climate science, he would publish it somewhere. But he doesn't. Of course he is getting paid.

That bolded part is conjecture, Ludwig. You didn't prove it.

It may be naive to think he was not paid (I don't, I am agnostic concerning that issue), but it is a non sequitur to think that he was paid, given those facts. It simply does not follow. It's not proof, it's only speculation.

That bolded part is conjecture, Ludwig. You didn't prove it.

OK. then what exactly is is motivation then?

If he is doing this out of his pure love of science that he thinks has gone wrong, why does he not do what every other scientist (who is not a paid shill) does in that position and publish his objections in a meaningful and peer reviewed way?

Why would someone who is not a climate scientist and has no connection to the field professionally, make such obvious errors in his arguments and overlook such basic science in his statements> Of course he knows the basic science. Of course he could look up the hard core climate science. Why damage an otherwise stirling reputation saying such nonsense?

Why would he be the one exception to the other people at Heartland and Cato who do get paid to say the same stuff?

What do you think the answer is if he is not getting paid?

What do you think the answer is if he is not getting paid?

I dunno, maybe he just loves being a pro bono asshole. I never pretended to know or be able to provide a provable answer, you did. FWIW, the senility answer you provided is as proven as the "taken" answer.

Yes and maybe we are all the dream of the cosmic blue turtle. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

I appreciate OOOG pointing out that LudwigVanQuixote has proved nothing, but has engaged in pure conjecture. But, let me correct the record anyway.

1. Ludwig writes: "Of course he is getting paid. Of course Heartland pays its "experts." That is 100 percent false in the case of Ivar Giaever. We do not pay Ivar Giaever. He is among more than 200 unpaid "policy advisors" for Heartland.

2. As for scientists being paid a modest $1,000 honoraria for speaking at Heartland's climate conferences -- that is common practice all over the think tank world, on all sides. It is idiotic to suggest it's a scandal to pay the travel costs of people you're asking to travel thousands of miles to share their research. Are you not curious if speakers are paid at climate alarmist conferences? Check into it. I'll bet you'll find that . GASP! . those folks are paid for their time, travel and work preparing for a conference.

3. The Heartland Institute has NEVER denied that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. And the link Ludwig used doesn't claim that, either. Heartland has pointed out that the links between second-hand smoke and cancer are thin to non-existent. There is quite a bit of difference between the two.

4. There is plenty of scientific literature that undercuts the theory of man-caused global warming. See our new 400-page report.

LUDWIG: I think you should admit that your bold claims to "prove" Giaever is "on the take" from Heartland or anyone else is a complete failure. Actually, you should apologize to Giaever. The Heartland Institute will accept a simple correction.

You're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to make up facts and pretend to prove something you have not.

Jim Lakely
Director of Communications
The Heartland Institute
Chicago, IL

Your whole institute is guilty of making up facts. You guys lied about the effects of smoking in the 90s. And now you're lying about AGW. Fuck off.

What Nature, the pre-eminent scientific journal, had to say about your report:

"Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations. makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading. Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. . The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.""

"New Report on Global Warming" funding sources, from SourceWatch:

The report was produced by The Heartland Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), three national nonprofit organizations based in Chicago, Illinois Tempe, Arizona and Arlington, Virginia respectively.

You're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to make up facts and pretend to prove something you have not.

Should you ever decide to leave heartland, the IMAX corporation would pay handsomely for your expertise in projection.

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has Exxon funding. SEPP has gotten funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. and Reverend Sun Myung Moon.

So, big oil and a complete religious whackjob. Which is why their report was torn to shreds by actual climatologists.

Does it make it better that someone would "sell out" for free, or really cheap?

Yes and maybe we are all the dream of the cosmic blue turtle. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

He sold out.

I agree that the "taken" hypothesis is plausible and arguably likely true. It is, however, also not proof in and of itself. Furthermore, there's lots of other possible explanations one can come up with, including the "enjoys being an ass" or maybe "likes to travel and network with conservatives", that are not much more unlikely – certainly not as unlikely as your "dream of the cosmic blue turtle" false analogy suggests.

Aside from that, and JFTR, I did not and do not intend to defend these guys (either Giaevers or Heartland or Cato or Exxon or what have you). Don't feel like they deserve anything like that from me. I seriously was just interested in poking at LVQ's argument – and as far as I am concerned, poking at flawed arguments is what enabled people to see through the Heartland Institute and associates to begin with. publicityStunted's #17 goes to the heart of the matter by bringing to light the hypocrisy displayed here in that regard.

The point is that the reason he did it is obviously not connected to actual honest scientific inquiry, as Ludwig made clear. The actual motive is pretty irrelevant.

The point is that the reason he did it is obviously not connected to actual honest scientific inquiry, as Ludwig made clear.

Then that should be enough, no?

The actual motive is pretty irrelevant.

Well, Ludwig initially argued for the existence of one particular motive here and I picked up that argument. In the context of this LGF discussion, I guess it is relevant, then.

A little context here on the Heartland Institute's long history of shilling for the tobacco industry: The Heartland Institute and the Academy of Tobacco Studies.

A little context here on the Heartland Institute's long history of shilling for the tobacco industry: The Heartland Institute and the Academy of Tobacco Studies.

I am glad you saw this too Charles. I just saw it only a few minutes ago and Shabbos is rolling in shortly. Of course I will respond, but I intend to do so carefully and with a lot of extra research to make certain he is responded to thoroughly.

Nice to see the proprietor of the mighty LGF weigh in.

I did not come here to convince any of you that reams of scientific evidence exists that puts into question the theory that human activity is chiefly, or even significantly, responsible for changes in the earth's climate. I realize that's a fool's errand in a group that believes in man-caused global warming as strongly as Michele Bachmann believes in the saving grace of Jesus. But, the link I have above contains the latest in our collection of evidence and study by scientists around the world. Read it, or don't read it.

1. LVQ said he would "prove" Giaever is on the take -- from Heartland. I can tell you that is simply not the case. And even if you don't want to believe me (I'm used to critics of Heartland simply refusing to take my word for anything), LVQ did not come within 1,000 miles of proving it. Again . because it's not true.

2. You can throw around all the evidence you'd like about Heartland's work on tobacco issues. And none of them say Heartland denies smoking cigarettes causes cancer. We maintain that the scientific link between second-hand smoke and cancer is weak to non-existent. Why can't you critics of Heartland at least acknowledge that there is a big difference?

The honorable thing for LVQ would be to correct himself. I'm not holding my breath.

Jim Lakely
The Heartland Institute

You're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to make up facts and pretend to prove something you have not.

The fact that you're a paid Heartland shill makes this sentence from you hilarious.

How do you get through the day with that much cognitive dissonance?

Glad to hear it, LVQ. (And I'm tickled that my "like" meter keeps plummeting for merely asking that criticisms of The Heartland Institute be based in fact rather than conjecture, links that don't actually say what the words in the post promise, etc.)

"Astroturfing began just like that, when smoking companies set up dummy research institutes and foundations to help people "learn the truth." But what they were really doing was trying to confuse people, and delay the implementation of tough smoking laws. And it worked. Their money bought a 10 or 12 year reprieve from legislation, giving them more than enough time to hook another generation. They are laughing all the way to the bank."
[Link: ]

Nice to see the proprietor of the mighty LGF weigh in.

Thanks for the compliment but as mighty as LGF undoubtedly is, it pales in comparison to the might of the industry front group you represent.

For one thing, we make do with quite a bit less money from industries that cause harm to the public.

Foundation funders

Media Transparency lists Heartland as having received grants from a range of foundations between 1986 and 2009. Of these foundations, by far the largest donor has been the foundation of Chicago industrialist Barre Seid[29], maker of Tripp Lite surge protectors.

Barbara and Barre Seid Foundation $1,037,977
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $648,000
Exxon Mobil $531,500
Walton Family Foundation $400,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation $325,000
Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust $190,500
Jaquelin Hume Foundation $166,000
Rodney Fund $135,000
JM Foundation $82,000
Castle Rock Foundation $70,000
Roe Foundation $41,500
John M. Olin Foundation $40,000
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation $40,000
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation $37,578
Armstrong Foundation $30,000
Hickory Foundation $13,000
Carthage Foundation $10,000

Exxon funding

Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website lists Heartland as having received $676,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006.[30] (As mentioned above, Heartland insist that Exxon has not contributed to the group since 2006.)[31]

Exxon contributions include:

$30,000 in 1998
$115,000 in 2000
$90,000 in 2001
$15,000 in 2002
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003
$85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004 and
$119,000 in 2005 and
$115,000 in 2006.

Secrecy on funding sources

While Heartland once disclosed its major supporters, it now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are. In response to an article criticizing the think tank for its secrecy, the group's President, Joseph Bast, wrote in February 2005:

"For many years, we provided a complete list of Heartland's corporate and foundation donors on this Web site and challenged other think tanks and advocacy groups to do the same. To our knowledge, not a single group followed our lead. However, critics who couldn’t or wouldn’t engage in fair debate over our ideas found the donor list a convenient place to find the names of unpopular companies or foundations, which they used in ad hominem attacks against us. Even reporters from time to time seemed to think reporting the identities of one or two donors--out of a list of hundreds--was a fair way of representing our funding or our motivation in taking the positions expressed in our publications. After much deliberation and with some regret, we now keep confidential the identities of all our donors."[32]

It has also claimed that "by not disclosing our donors, we keep the focus on the issue."

And I'm tickled that my "like" meter keeps plummeting

I am pretty sure the downdings that must seem to you like some bizarroworld version of the Breitbart Universe you are used to get lovebombed in are not due to you "merely asking etc." but the dishonest and/or ignorant way in which you build up your "evidence".

It is interesting to note how you have changed your stances and foci even in these comments.

It is evident - absolutely evident that Dr.Giaever is working with a fossil fuel industry funded group (yours) known for producing "science" that is strongly repudiated by the majority of the legitimate scientific community. It is repudiated by data. It is repudiated by mountains of evidence from multiple lines of pursuit. It is evident that the "science" your institute produces in regards to AGW serves the financial and political interests of the groups that fund you.

It is questionable form for a scientist to associate with such groups because it calls his scientific rigor deeply into question. Your group is hardly unbiased or in pursuit of scientific truth as its primary goal.

A troubling question is formed by this. Why would an otherwise excellent scientist, with a sterling reputation, come out and call the work of his colleagues a religion and spout the talking points of an institute like yours with no particular research of his own to back up his assertions?

You are correct. I have not, in a legal sense proven that money has changed hands in this matter. It is possible that Dr. Giaever merely enjoys shooting his mouth off about the research of thousands of his colleagues without bothering to do the basic research of the literature that would be expected of a graduate student. He surely knows what a Milankovitch cycle is. He surely knows what a greenhouse effect is. He surely can not believe that all that carbon is doing nothing or that we are not putting it up there. It is possible that he has some earth shaking data of his own to publish and for some unknown reason is waiting to publish. However, it is unlikely that a man of his stature would be so careless.

His comment that the earth's temperature is "remarkably stable" because of only a 0.7 C change over 150 years is an astonishingly careless remark. It's more like 100 years for one thing but more importantly, he knows, he has to know, that vastly smaller changes in temperature can radically alter certain systems, while other systems remain stable over vastly larger temperature changes. His statement is meaningless. 0.7 C above zero is water, below by 0.7 C is ice.

Every scientist knows that talking about the effects of temperature change without talking about the specific system involved is simply ridiculous. He knows this. A graduate student would not be permitted to make such an error.

It turns out that this seemingly small change in temperature is already producing changed weather patterns, droughts and floods around the world.

So why is he being so purposefully careless after a career marked by stellar science? Why is he saying this stuff for you when your entire purpose in this arena is to be opposed to climate science?

But you are correct. I have not proved anything in the strictest sense of the word. Perhaps he is just cranky! That is possible. I would be very curious though to hear another reasonable explanation.

Sheesh. Try to be a nice guy .

Say whatever you want about Heartland, just make sure it's fact-based. Charles pointed out our funding break-down from Sourcewatch. You don't see me flaming him, do you? (Though the "who funds you" game is tiresome. Break down Exxon's support of Heartland and it's peanuts for a think tank with a $6 million budget -- and nothing compared to what the warming side gets.)

And, as Charles helpfully points out, Exxon stopped sending money our way in 2006. Our first climate conference was 2008. Isn't that interesting? Doesn't it suggest that Heartland takes its positions on principle? And, perhaps, Giaever did, as well?

No. I suppose it's just easier to assign on whatever motivation you can imagine (but cannot know), say you'll prove it, do nothing of the kind, and then jump on me when I point out the obvious.

I'm having some fun here. Might not stick around much longer, however. Got more important things to do . which many of you will imagine is evil. So be it. I just think you guys are wrong.

Chronology of Ivar Giaever’s tobacco connections and climate denial

1964-1998 Council for Tobacco Research ( CTR ) – Distraction Research, Decoy Research, Filibuster Research

Robert Proctor’s Golden Holocaust – Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe… covers this in Chapter 16, 1
Such research sounded good, sometimes was very good and even led to Nobels, but studied everything about cancer except connection with tobacco. Of course, Giaever’s Nobel (superconducting) had nothing whatsoever to do with health, but his award was a useful marketing tactic.

1964 Surgeon General report clearly proved smoking-disease links. It was followed by frequent updates, including:

“Giaever” is an easy search at Truth Tobacco Industry Documents and he shows up often in the Philip Morris ( PM ) collection, with documents spanning at least 1983-2000, 2-4 decades after the 1964 Surgeon General report.

1983.09.16 Giaever, still with General Electric, spent a day with PM scientists and top research executives, such as Cliff Lilly and then- VP R&D Max Hauserman. He spoke for their Technical Seminar Series.

1984.10 PM was building dossiers on researchers, including Giaever, to select speakers for 1985 research symposium.

1984.10.31 PM had proposed speakers and alternates, including Giaever, p.11.

1985.10.18 PM held its Fifth Science Symposium. Giaever and his wife were banquet guests, p.13. PM employees outnumbered others

3:1, so that the latter were mostly talking to the former. The image above dates from then.

1992.02 Giaever makes research proposal to PM .

1992 Heidelberg Appeal Giaever and 71 other Nobelists signed the ambiguous “motherhood” Heidelberg Appeal. 2
Fred Singer’s SEPP website archived this , as did PM , who certainly cared about it . Singer helped organize many petitions against mainstream climate science, ( Crescendo p.93) repeatedly signed by many of the same people, usually not climate scientists, but seeming credible to the general public. Nobelists would have been prized above all, and Singer certainly knew many physicists (Merchants of Doubt), so this mainly shows a Singer-Giaever connection, rather than a clear climate position.

1992.08 Second International Conference on Theories of Carcinogenesis, Oslo, Norway August 15-21. Giaever spoke:
“Can the modern theory of chaos, fractal mathematics, etc be applied to the problem of carcinogenesis and cancer?”

T he program covered a wide range of topics, but “tobacco” was unmentioned as in their earlier 1986 conference, This seemed free “distraction” research funded by others, but Francis Roe, a UK tobacco industry consultant was a key organizer and speaker at both. The CTR and companies monitored these events closely. 3

2000.05 Giaver (and/or Wnek) makes biosensor research proposal to PM .
Reviewers recommend against (here, here.)

“To date, the technique does not seem to be mature enough to be used in routine testing, although this was suggested in the proposal . Indicative of the limited use of this techniques in other laboratories is the bibliography, which does not include publications of anybody else but the authors themselves.”

2008.07.01 At 58th Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting, Giaever participated in a panel, whose online video is excerpted below. 4
‘ Panel Discussion on “Climate Changes and Energy Challenges” with Nobel Laureates Profs. Deisenhofer, Giaever, Michel, Osheroff, Rubbia, von Klitzing, Steinberger (Chair: Prof. Dr. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber)’ (senior climate scientist)

He said he was a skeptic, need not worry since he was from Norway, global warming a new religion, hockey stick was not very big, all from a bit of research using Google. He cherry-picked a few years of temperature history from the USA alone, expressed doubt that warming was caused by humans and said nothing could be done.

He claimed that it took 20 years for a solar cell to return its energy cost, was contradicted, changed that to 10, and then ignored the reply. He said the USA had 500 years of coal and huge shale oil in Colorado. He worried about a new ice age, but not about sea level rise. He talked about a “small ice age” in Europe. The most indicative comment was the last one:
He expressed anger at Norway’s awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore the year before.

2009.03.30 CATO advertisement in major newspapers (Crescendo pp.81-82). Giaever was only Nobelist.

“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.” (Few signers are climate scientists, but many familiar names appear.)

2009. GI aever signed the Oregon Petition some time between 2008.01.16 and 2009.05. 5

2009.05 Petition to the American Physical Society ( APS ) 5 Giaever signed to nullify its climate change statement.
Science Bypass dissected this PR campaign led by physicists who published little or no peer-reviewed climate science:
Fred Singer (1924-), Science and Environmental Policy Project, his

one-man think tank.
Harold (“ Hal”) Lewis (1923-2011), superconductors, then UC Santa Barbara nuclear power, risk analysis, later quit APS
Will Happer (1939-), Chairman George C. Marshall Institute, Princeton atomic physics (now emeritus),
Laurence Gould (1942-), U of Hartford, physics, Heartland speaker and global warming “expert”.
Roger Cohen (1927-) ExxonMobil (ret), resigned 10/22/12 from APS topical climate group, rebutted by Warren Warren.
Robert Austin (1946-), Princeton biophysics, interviewed in Temperatures rising, had been convinced by Happer.

Princeton has a large, highly-ranked physics department and many Nobelists , fertile audiences had the petition been about science, not ideology. Happer and Austin are both Members of the National Academy of Sciences, but could only recruit 2 more Princeton signers, Salvatore Torquato (Chemistry) and Syzmon Suckewer ( plasma physics/lasers).

Months of noisy PR campaigning recruited less than 0.5% of the 47,000 APS members,

200 signers, most recruited via obvious personal relationships and strongly skewed demographically towards older males. At least 4 organizers might have known Giaever, and he signed in the first wave. He likely recruited a coauthor Jens Feder but was the only Nobelist signer.

In essence, a tiny group of physicists, mostly older men who were not climate scientists, recruited associates and demanded APS reject mainstream science and ignore most of the APS membership. When they failed, some quit, noisily, often with letters given to denier websites or media.

2010.10.06 Hal Lewis resigned from APS . He concluded that, in his view, global warming was “the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” The APS replied. Within a few days he became an Academic Advisor for the Global Warming Policy Foundation . Happer still is .

2011.09.13 Giaever resigned from the APS over its climate position.

2011.10 – present Heartland “Global Warming Expert” (by virtue of

day with Google). Giaever is the only Nobelist.
DeSmog readers know Heartland for climate denial, but Heartland had been funded long before by Big Tobacco, and had a PM Board member 1996-2008 (Fakery 2, pp.37-62. Joseph Bast cited his article “Joe Camel is innocent” when asking for money. Heartland now pushes e-cigarettes.

2012.07.02 Giaever gave a 30-minute lecture “The Strange Case of “Global Warming” at the 62nd Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting, following Paul Crutzen and Mario Molina, an odd juxtaposition. Dana Nuccitelli at Skeptical Science discussed his errors in detail in Ivar Giaever – Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist ( 2012), so those need not be repeated. He mostly added some graphs to the same claims made in 2008 above, having learned little or nothing, but still showed strong opinions not backed by evidence.

“ in my view, APS has become a political (or religious?) society. Consequently, I resigned from APS …
In this talk I will explain why I became concerned about the climate, and terrified by the one sided propaganda in the media, In particular I am worried about all the money wasted on alternate energies, when so many children in the world go hungry to bed.”

2015.07.01 Meeting Giaever’s talk “Global Warming Revisited” This is mostly more of the same, but a detailed dissection is offered in Foreign Policy Journal starts the year with Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever on Climate Change.

Thus, Giaever got a Nobel for superconductors, moved into biophysics, cooperated with Philip Morris for more than a decade, still acts as a Heartland “Expert” and keeps demonstrating ignorance of the climate science he attacks.

Most Nobelists know better, as seen in The Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change (2015).

1 1964-1968 p.260 ‘Over forty-odd years more than $300 million was provided for “tobacco and health” research. All of which was widely advertised …On paper, the ambition was to “explore and learn the causes of disease, including the role if any played by tobacco use”… it rarely supported research that might reveal smoking as a cause of human harm. The primary focus was on the mechanisms of disease rather than its preventable causes.’

p.272 ‘And what about those six CTR grantees who later went on to win the Nobel prize? …No one can complain about the quality of work of these scholars – it is fine basic research into genetics, immunology, virology, and the like – but Big Tobacco supported such work because it posed no threat to the continued sale of cigarettes.’

CTR acted an independent-seeming front for the tobacco companies and one cannot blame the scholars. Much closer company connections occurred with others, such as Frederick Seitz (Chapter 20, also Merchants of Doubt) … and Ivar Giaever, after he’d shifted from superconducting to biophysics. Both have been strong voices for climate denial, too.

2 1992 He did not sign the more explicit Union of Concerned Scientists’ “Warning to Humanity.” Via SourceWatch :

“ The Heidelberg Appeal was, in fact, a scam perpetrated by the asbestos and tobacco industries … later funded and controlled by a coalition which included coal, oil and energy interests, so the two denial strands merged. The Appeal document and the conferences which gave it life were organized by S. Fred Singer…
The document itself was promoted in the USA through Philip Morris’s then-private public relations firm, APCO …

Both the “Warning to Humanity” document, and the “Heidelberg Appeal” were signed by highly credible scientists who strongly believed in the statements being made. The initial signers of both documents also provided their qualifications, disciplines, and affiliations, so at this level, there was no deception. It is also worth noting that about 40% of the scientists who signed the “Heidelberg Appeal” also had their signatures on the “Warning” document – apparently supporting opposite sides simultaneously. In fact, the two groups and the two documents were not in dispute. The fraud comes from the way in which the Heidelberg document was used by the climate deniers to manufacture the impression of a dispute about global climate change. “

3 1992 Tobacco companies followed these conferences with interest . Francis ( FJC ) Roe consulted for Tobacco Advisory Council ( TAC ), an industry lobbying group, starting no later than 1980. Search “Francis Roe” OR “ FJC Roe” gets 1800 hits.
Hilda and Leonard Zahn reported on the 1986 conference to CTR lawyer Robert F. Gertenbach:

p.3 ‘ Iversen, of course, sought help early on in establishing the format and content of the program. He got aid in initial planning from FRANCIS J .C . ROE of London, UK , the well-known scientist, ‘…
p.4 ‘ no great attention during the conference to the subject of smoking and health, specifically smoking and cancer. A few speakers mentioned smoking and lung cancer during,their talks or in open discussions.’

A 1988 RJR “Secret” memo reports of a meeting with Roe, one of many by tobacco companies, who were quite happy to follow cancer conferences with legitimate researchers studying anything except tobacco:

p.6 ‘Because he is a consultant to the TAC and independently to some UK tobacco companies he needs to keep a low profile and would not want his name attached to it at this stage.’

Follow l ing the 1992 conference ( attendees) , Roe wrote the following, found in the PM collection:

p.1 ‘ I was involved in the planning. both of the first Conference in this series (which took place in 1986 and gave rise to the book “Theories of Carcinogenesis” edited by O .H . Iversen, …) and of the 1992 conference .’

01:15-08:30 Schellnhuber Introduction. How serious is this combined challenge of climate change and energy security? What are the best combined strategies? How can science and technology contribute?

“I am a skeptic. … I am from Norway, so why should I worry? … We were worried about acid rain. … The ozone hole was in the papers. … global warming has become a new religion „, When you see the hockey stick … it looks so scary, but it is in a fraction of a degree … really isn’t very big. … I did a little research on Google before I went on this panel so I don’t claim to know much about the global warming … The temperature inside the United States, the highest temperature was 1998, the second highest tempreature was 1934, the third highest temperature was 1921. How can that be? … Even if the global warming is caused by man, we’ll use the oil, there’s really nothing much we can do about it.”

53:25-57:20 Giaever, with (interspersed rebuttals) from Schellnhuber: or others:

“The solar energy is a fine source of energy, but it’s too diffuse, therefore you need too big areas and it’s too costly. If I got back 20 years ago, somebody calculated, I’m not sure if it’s true today or not, for a solar cell to regain the energy it took to make it, it would take 20 years, and people don’t want to talk about these things.”
(“That’s not true any more.”) “It takes 10 years.” ( “No, 3/4 (garbled, but ignored by Giaever)”) … “
In the United States we have coal, for another 500 years. We have shale oil in Colorado, which is equivalent to all the oil in Saudi Arabia. So there is no limit here if you’re willing to do the CO2 things. And if you look at climate in the historical sense, ice ages have happened, I forget exact number, 4 or 5 times every like 100,000 years and now we are right on the level where it is supposed to happen again, 10,000 years into a stable temperature. And when the ice age comes, the temperature falls 8 degrees. So maybe we should pollute more, to prevent that (laughing). … but what is the the correct temperature? It would be a miracle if the correct temperature for the world is the temperature we have today. Clearly that is not true. Maybe we’d be better off 2 degrees warmer. Maybe we’d be better off 2 degrees colder. I don’t know, but what I do know is this is not the correct temperature.”
(Schellnhuber explains no ice age for 40,000 years, sea level rise, degree = 20m SLR , although speed unknown.) “Greenland … at above 15000 meters the ice have increasing, the coastline is decreasing … there is more ice on Greenland now than there was at the beginning of this period.”
(Schellnhuber: that is well understood, but the overall mass balance is clearly negative.)

1:05:00 Audience Q&A , Can we be sure mankind causes climate change?

“There’s something called the small ice age in Europe, and i forget, there’s something like 200 years around 1600, the climate became much colder, and nobody knows why and no climate model can tell you why. And the fact is that the EaRth is not in a stable circle around the Sun, the axis changes, Jupiter out there disturbing the planet and so on and all sorts of things can happen. And I think that the chance that the chance the global warming anthropogenic is not very large. It may be, but it may also not be … man from Sweden gave a wonderful talk about the real problems of the world, people are really poor and so on, and I think a much better way of spending the money on that than to spending the money trying to prevent somethign we can’t prevent anyway.” (others rebut)

Disussion of energy efficiency, including transport losses in electrical grid
1:16:30-1:16:47 Giaever

“I don’t know much about that, but I think that’s a very small part, the transport loss of what we use, so I don’t think that’s very important.” (Interjection: “10 percent”) ”10 percent, that’s a small part.”
(Interjection: 10% of very big number)

Discussion of scientists, public and politicians
01:25:59 Giaever

“in my opinion the Nobel prize in global warming and such has already been given last year by Gore, who got the Nobel prize for warming and what-not, and I hate to say something bad about Norway, but in this case, I sharply disagreed with that prize.”

Philip Morris was proud of its R&D in this report, which curiously omitted their “best” R&D that made Marlboro the leading brand, even more effective in addicting adolescents. It was not just cowboy marketing. but methods that took competitors years to discover. In the 1960s, PM found freebasing (“crack nicotine”) heightened the “kick” of nicotine, as per Stevenson and Proctor (2008) “ The SECRET and SOUL of Marlboro – Phillip Morris and the Origins, Spread, and Denial of Nicotine Freebasing:”

“There is also tragedy, though, in the fact that so many scholars have helped to perfect and enhance this terrible technology of mortality. …We should not be so surprised that the industry has manipulated cigarette chemistry to keep people smoking what is surprising, though, is how easily they have gotten away with it.”

Ivar Giaever

Ivar Giaever ([ˈjeːvər] alun perin Giæver, s. 5. huhtikuuta 1929) on norjalainen fyysikko. Giaever jakoi vuonna 1973 Nobelin fysiikanpalkinnon Leo Esakin ja Brian Josephsonin kanssa tutkimuksestaan tunneloitumisilmiöstä puoli- ja suprajohteessa. [1] Giaever työskentelee Oslon yliopiston professorina.

Giaever syntyi vuonna 1929 toisena lapsena perheen yhteensä kolmesta lapsesta. Hän varttui Totenissa, jossa hänen isänsä John A. Giaever toimi farmaseuttina. Perusopetuksen hän sai Totenissa, mutta toisen asteen opinnot hän kävi Hamarin kaupungissa. Ennen opintojensa aloittamista Norjalaisessa teknillisessä instituutissa vuonna 1948, hän oli töissä vuoden Raufoss Munition -tehtailla. Giaever valmistui mekaniikan insinööriksi vuonna 1952. Seuraavana vuonna hän suoritti asepalveluksen Norjan armeijassa, ja sen jälkeen hänet otettiin Norjan hallitukselle töihin patenttitutkijaksi.

Ivar Giaever meni naimisiin Inger Skramstadin kanssa vuonna 1952 ja suhteeseen syntyi neljä lasta. Giaeveristä tuli Yhdysvaltain kansalainen vuonna 1964.

Ivar Giaever

(born 1929). Norwegian-born American physicist Ivar Giaever shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 with Leo Esaki and Brian D. Josephson for work in solid-state physics. His work provided support for the BCS theory of superconductivity, for which John Bardeen, Leon N. Cooper, and John Robert Schrieffer had won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1972. (The BCS theory—named for the initials of the three men—explains why some materials lose all resistance to the flow of electricity at very low temperatures.)

Giaever was born on April 5, 1929, in Bergen, Norway. He received an engineering degree at the Norwegian Institute of Technology in Trondheim in 1952 and became a patent examiner for the Norwegian government. In 1954 Giaever immigrated to Canada, where he worked as a mechanical engineer with the General Electric Company in Ontario. In 1956 he was transferred to General Electric’s Development Center in Schenectady, New York. There Giaever shifted his interest to physics and did graduate work at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, receiving a Ph.D. in 1964.

Giaever conducted most of his work in solid-state physics and particularly in superconductivity. He pursued the idea of combining superconductivity and Esaki’s work in tunneling, eventually producing superconductor devices that allowed electrons to pass like waves of radiation through “holes” in solid-state devices. Using a “sandwich” consisting of an insulated piece of superconducting metal and a normal one, he achieved new tunneling effects that led to greater understanding of superconductivity. It was for this work—based in part on Esaki’s work in tunneling and further developed by Josephson—that Giaever shared the 1973 Nobel Prize with Esaki and Josephson.

Ivar Giaever

Born in Bergen, Norway, Giaever studied electrical engineering at the Norwegian Institute of Technology. He did service with the Norwegian Army (1952–53) and worked as a patent examiner in the Norwegian Patent Office (1953–54). In 1954 he emigrated to Canada to take up the post of mechanical engineer with the Canadian General Electric Company, transferring to General Electric's Research and Development Center in Schenectady, New York, in 1956. He gained his doctorate in 1964 from the New York Rensselear Polytechnical Institute, where he became professor of physics in 1988.

At General Electric, Giaever worked on tunneling effects in superconductors, a phenomenon explored by Leo Esaki. In 1960 he performed experiments with metals separated by a thin insulating film through which electrons tunneled, and found that if one of the metals was in the superconducting state, the current–voltage characteristics of such junctions were highly nonlinear and revealed much about the superconducting state. This laid the foundation for Brian Josephson's important discovery of the Josephson effect.

Giaever, Josephson, and Esaki shared the 1973 Nobel Prize for physics for their various contributions to knowledge of the phenomenon of tunneling and superconductivity. Their work has had important application in microelectronics and in the precise measurement of electromotive force.

Subsequently, Giaever has also published work in the field of visual observation of the antibody-antigen reaction.

Watch the video: . Αφάντου 2005-6 (August 2022).