John Mashey looks behind Dr. Ivar Giaever's facade

Last month in my 'sock puppet' series I spent much time participating in and reporting on a debate within the comments of a YouTube video, "The PseudoScience of CO2 Based Climate" given by another self-deluded but oh so self-certain old character.  I know it's rude but the utter childishness of Giaever's arguments demand no less.  I'm amazed such transparent fraudsters aren't tossed out by their ears.  Nah, instead they get paraded around and applauded in a sick strategic effort to keep the public ill-informed.  Why do I think I can say such things about Ivar Giaever, well it's his own words and track record that speak for themselves.

I'll let John Mashey explain the details in this Repost of his recent DeSmogBlog article - after all he knows them much, much better than I do.
_________________________________________________________

Ivar Giaever: Nobel Icon For Climate Deniers, and Philip Morris

Sensible Nobel laureates study new topics before offering strong opinions on them. For example, at nearby Stanford, Burton Richter "retired" from high-energy physics, and kept contributing, as in talks, book and energy efficiency project. Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has no problem speaking on climate science. Of course, both have easy access to top…

You mean Dr. Mann didn't invent Manmade Global Warming?

A walk down memory lane in honor of the Paris Climate Conference, (well and also for my pal AL with his hate-on for Dr. Mann and rejection of climate proxy work in general as described in the comments thread at Prof Ivar Giaever's pathetic YouTube PseudoScience talk), I'm going to reprint a few posts I'd originally written for my Citizenschallenge Blog a couple years back since the information they hold is a valid and relevant today as it was then.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This morning I awoke to an interesting article over at HotWhopper.com, it's a reproduction of a 1884 newspaper article in the Australian newspaper "Border Watch" titled "Cold And Heat Near The Poles."  In it the author discusses the discovery of fossil traces of tropical flora in the Arctic and the implication that Earth's climate was variable.

Then continuing with a discuss of Earth's early atmosphere, it's interaction with the lithosphere, and the ability of certain gases to retain heat trying to escape into the cold vacuum of space.  The article ends with:

"... Many ingenious hypotheses have been proposed to account for the warmer climate of earlier times, but are at best unsatisfactory; and it appears to me that the true solution of the problem may be found in the constitution of the early atmosphere, when considered in the light of Dr. Tyndall's beautiful researches on radiant heat.  

He has found that the presence of a few hundredths of carbonic acid gas in the atmosphere, while offering almost no obstacle to the passage of the solar rays, would suffice to prevent almost entirely the loss by radiation of obscure heat, so that the surface of the land beneath such an atmosphere would become like a vast orchid house, in which the conditions of climate necessary to a luxuriant vegetation would be extended even to the polar regions."

ALBERT K. VARLEY, F.R.S. Mount Gambier, June 12, 1884."

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/flashback-to-1884-few-hundredths-of.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

After the article there's a reference to "more flashbacks relating to climate and Earth science from the National Library of Australia," it leads to a section of her blog that links to a collection of articles going back in time.  These articles do a good job of putting the developing science of climate change into a historical perspective.  While also exposing the lie that all this global warming talk is some sort of conspiracy intend on undermining our freedoms.  That list is followed with another one of her posts looking at the mischief making of Anthony Watts and friends.

I'm happy to do my part to help spread this information, so with a big shout out to Sou for all the hard work she puts into her blog, here's a reproduction of her collection of historic newspaper articles that shine a light on the early history of the science of climate change.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/p/blog-page_19.html

Climate history as gleaned from old Australian newspapers 

Flashback to 1884: A few hundredths of carbonic acid gas in the atmosphere...the surface...would become like a vast orchid house

Flashback to 1906 - another ice age coming.. featuring Sir Robert Ball

Flashback to 1909: Professor Skeats on CO2 and water vapour acting as "a kind of a blanket"

From 1913 - A perspective on volcanoes and ice ages from Prof WJ Humphreys

Flashback to 1910 - the Indian Monsoon and ENSO - featuring Sir Gilbert Thomas Walker

Flashback to 1922 - World Growing Warmer - featuring The Weather Optimist from London's Daily Mail

Flashback to 1940: Gradually rising earth's temperature and Kirtley Fletcher Mather

Flash back to 1949 - Global Warming, Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica and a Young Australian

featuring Gordon de Quetteville Robin

Flashback to 1947 - Arctic Climate's Alarming Change featuring Hans W:son Ahlmann

Flashback to 1957 - CO2 from Industry May be Warming Earth

Flashback to 1967: The Weather and Air Pollution featuring J Murray Mitchell Jr, Robert A McCormick and John H Ludwig

Flashback to 1972 - Scientists Fear for Arctic Sea Ice - melt may bring irreversible climatic change 

part 2 - Debating a sock-puppet

AL won't respond over here, so I'm sharing his response to my previous post made regarding Prof Ivar Giaever's pathetic YouTube PseudoScience talk where he denounces the scientific understanding of CO2 with truly childish distractions and misrepresentations that any honestly interested person ought to be able to see right through.  

Unfortunately most of his fans are not honest, they are brainwashed into thinking the whole world is against them and that if scientists have information they don't like, they should ignore it - in fact it's worse, in their minds it's OK to misrepresent the facts, fabricate scandals, attack scientific leaders and champion kindergarten arguments if in support of their political ideology.
(touch up edits 11/25/15 am)

AL (9:46 AM -11/23/15) writes: 

+citizenschallengeYT Not sure what you want with that link, but trying to prove anything with a personal blog that starts with

"This is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing Republican/ libertarian assault on rational science and constructive learning, as manifested in their malicious strategic Attacks on Science"

isn't directly proof of anything. The links on that page are just links to other blogs and not scientific papers (You should take a closer look.  Plus you'll find links within links, just gotta poke around.).

I already know the alarmists point of view and as I said it's easily refuted with science and the latest data that we have. (OK, so when are you going to share some of that!?)

___________________________________

AL, I don't believe you do understand anything of substance about the "alarmists point of view." 

I infer this from your shallow response that indicates you won't even allow yourself to actually read any of that information. Let alone digest any of it, nah you're too busy throwing up transparent defenses.  Pretending you have some "science and latest data" that disputes the accepted understanding - but never coming up with more than arm-waving, which I looked at in my previous post.
___________________________________

"… but trying to prove anything with a personal blog that starts with … isn't directly proof of anything."

AL, you serious?  Looking for "direct proof" from an internet dialogue?  

Why are you playing this game?  Serious people appreciate that there is no "proof" in Natural Sciences.

It's always been about a preponderance of evidence, appreciation for understood natural laws and the flow of time, good faith assessment of evidence and learning from mistakes, along with a healthy sense of self-skepticism, such is the currency of "science" and learning to understand our planet.  

AL, I wonder if you appreciate the concept of consensus and to the best of our current understanding.

  

Beyond that I think you're confused about our discussion.  Let's go back to the start of our "debate" - you said:

debating a sock-puppet and another collection of informative links

This time we're at a comments thread to a YouTube video

The PseudoScience of CO2 Based Climate by professor Ivar Giaever

By virtue of sharing a Nobel for "experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors" back in 1973 - contrarians bathe Ivar in an aura of climate science authority which the old guy certainly does not possess.
(fyi - http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html )

  

Heck he even admits he's only done the most cursory reviews of articles - evidently he hadn't been paying attention to anything outside his microscopic tunneling and solid state physics for the past half century - not much of a background for pontificating on climate science, but oh boy, pontificate he certainly does.  Incidentally, it's not too difficult noticing that he nurses a grudge.

In any event, I owe "AL" an apology, he did post this list of specifics way back on the 9th, sorry for missing that, glad I stubbled on it this evening.   I don't want to ignore your challenge so better late than never (I have not changed or eliminated any of your words).  I'll keep it simple and let the links fill in the rest of the story. (I did some touch up editing 11/24/15 am)

______________________________________________________________

AL wrote Nov 9, 2015:  +citizenschallengeYT

"Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis."

____________________

Nonsense - You can find countless sources explicitly explaining that mankind is to blame for the warming of the past 50 years.  Claiming otherwise is an out and out lie!  Stop denying the CO2 we've put in the air, and the impacts of that increased atmospheric insulation on our climate.  Besides human drivers of global warming are not limited to increasing greenhouse gases, but that's a whole different compounding story I'll save for another time.

IPCC 2007

Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report 2. Causes of change

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2013 - IPCC PRESS RELEASE

Human influence on climate clear, IPCC report says

https://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/press_release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Summary - Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis - 27 September 2013

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.VlPZrulyHww

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HOW MUCH GLOBAL WARMING IS HUMAN CAUSED?

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-warming-is-only-part-human-caused