Obama Doesn’t Have Time To Discuss Science With Nobel Prize Winner Who Supported Him

President Obama says that global warming is the biggest problem Earth has ever faced, based on the opinion of about three or four flaming morons he considers to be the world’s top scientists. He also says he doesn’t have time to debate the “Flat Earth Society” – which by his definition would include this guy.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobel Scientist Says Obama’s ‘Dead Wrong’ On Global Warming | The Daily Caller

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Obama Doesn’t Have Time To Discuss Science With Nobel Prize Winner Who Supported Him

  1. omanuel says:

    Obama has to focus all his attention on instructions from those planning the UN’s big IPCC celebration in Paris!

  2. gator69 says:

    Only 46% of Nobel Laureats Support Climate Change Initiative

    A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, 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 signed the declaration. As is typical of the supression of the alternate views on climate, we never heard the opinion of the 35 who were in the majority.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/07/deniers-in-their-midst-all-is-not-well-in-nobel-prize-land/

  3. Imagine a crowded room with Obama at the centre. Now imagine a serious smelly gaseous emission and the crowd as one “finds itself further away”.

    That is what Obama is looking like now on climate.

    Everyone is being polite, but we all know where the hot air came from.

    • omanuel says:

      Great analogy! But the gaseous emission came the UN’s IPCC. Poor Obama is just the “fall guy.”

      • Gail Combs says:

        Obama is not a fall guy he was groomed for the position. If anything he HATES the USA.

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Gail! Here we agree 100%. Putin may be (is) evil, but at least he does not work against the interests of his own country. Obama is the biggest pile of meadow muffin I have ever seen.

          My apologies to meadow muffins.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Agreed Gator,
          At this point I rather have Putin. At least he is working for his country’s interests and he is darn smart and crafty.

          He is now cozying up to China and Greece (warm water ports with gas and oil offshore) which is not a good thing for us.

          I really really want to kick the rears of the Donkeys (both flavors) in DC. Worldwide Interdependence is a fool’s dream and we are going to be the fools sitting under the big crapper in the sky when China or Korea decides to flush. Meanwhile the Donkeys in DC keep poking sticks at the Russians. Luboš Motl has a decent write-up about the politics that I was not aware of Ukraine. link

          To make matters worse the stock market in China just took a nose dive. I really really hope TPTB is not planning on getting us into WWIII.

        • Marsh says:

          So Gail,, why did the majority of Americans fall for Obama twice; are they masochists?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Who said Americans actually voted for Obama the second time around?

          From New Zealand: How To Rig An Election In The United States

          Did the US Mainstream Media [owned by the Banksters] do an end run around the REAL scandal?

          “When asked to comment on allegations by Bev Harris that the Diebold software may have been designed to facilitate fraud, Rubin described the claim as “ludicrous.” Rubin could dismiss the allegation of deliberately fraudulent design in Diebold software, because his team never examined the Diebold software in question.

          Incredibly, this software keeps not one, but two Microsoft Access data tables of voting results. It’s like a business keeping two sets of account books. The two tables are notionally identical copies of the votes collated from all polling stations. The software uses the first table for on-demand reports which might uncover alteration of the data — such as spot checks of results from individual polling stations.

          The second of the two tables is the one used to determine the election result. But the second table can be hacked and altered to produce fake election totals without affecting spot check reports derived from the first table.”….

          Hundreds of potential Cases of Voter Fraud Uncovered in North Carolina

          This is the most telling piece of information. Why target this woman unless you have something to hide?
          True the Vote was targeted by the IRS for selective persecution and harassment.

          I even have to use the Wayback Machine to find her most critical post.
          How Widespread is Voter Fraud? | 2012 Facts & Figures

          Why target voter groups from the other side? I thought this was a free country.
          Study finds IRS suppression of Tea Party swung 2012 election

        • gator69 says:

          Gail, the “bansksters” I worked for were not Obama supporters.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator,

          I should make it clear that there are “Banksters” aka the International banking cartel and the other guys. As E. M. Smith mentioned the name of the game is to have a monopoly.

          Since the Federal Reserve act went in the independent bankers have been the target of the Banking Cartel.

          …The next consideration was to conceal the fact that the proposed “Federal Reserve System” would be dominated by the masters of the New York money market. The Congressmen from the South and the West could not survive if they voted for a Wall Street plan. Farmers and small businessmen in those areas had suffered most from the money panics. There had been great popular resentment against the Eastern bankers, which during the nineteenth century became a political movement known as “populism”. The private papers of Nicholas Biddle, not released until more than a century after his death, show that quite early on the Eastern bankers were fully aware of the widespread public opposition to them….

          Another proposal advanced by Paul Warburg at Jekyll Island was the manner of selection of administrators for the proposed regional reserve system. Senator Nelson Aldrich had insisted that the officials should be appointive, not elected, and that Congress should have no role in their selection. His Capitol Hill experience had taught him that congressional opinion would often be inimical to the Wall Street interests, as Congressmen from the West and South might wish to demonstrate to their constituents that they were protecting them against the Eastern bankers.…..

          Andrew Frame testified before the House Banking and Currency Committee of the American Bankers Association. He represented a group of Western bankers who opposed the Aldrich Plan:

          CHAIRMAN CARTER GLASS: “Why didn’t the Western bankers make themselves heard when the American Bankers Association gave its unqualified and, we are assured, unanimous approval of the scheme proposed by the National Monetary Commission?”

          ANDREW FRAME: “I’m glad you called my attention to that. When that monetary bill was given to the country, it was but a few days previous to the meeting of the American Bankers Association in New Orleans in 1911. There was not one banker in a hundred who had read that bill. We had twelve addresses in favor of it. General Hamby of Austin, Texas, wrote a letter to President Watts asking for a hearing against the bill. He did not get a very courteous answer. I refused to vote on it, and a great many other bankers did likewise.”

          MR. BULKLEY: “Do you mean that no member of the Association could be heard in opposition to the bill?”

          ANDREW FRAME: “They throttled all argument.”

          MR. KINDRED: “But the report was given out that it was practically unanimous.”

          ANDREW FRAME: “The bill had already been prepared by Senator Aldrich and presented to the executive council of the American Bankers Association in May, 1911. As a member of that council, I received a copy the day before they acted upon it. When the bill came in at New Orleans, the bankers of the United States had not read it.”
          http://www.federal-reserve.net/secrets.htm

          Boy does that conversation sound familiar…

          I do not think all that much has changed. Heck my bank, BB&T was run by an Objectivist who supported a libertarian candidate I worked for. He BTW managed to weather the maneuvers of the Banksters quite well but they still got him in the end:

          Business Hero John Allison: BB&T — The Bank That Atlas Built

          ….Under his leadership BB&T had grown into a bank holding company with 1,800 branches sprawling over 12 Southern states and Washington, D.C., among the top 10 banks in all but one of those markets. BB&T has 30,000 employees and over $150 billion in assets, making it the 12th largest U.S. bank.

          Now he was being forced to give substantial control of it to the U.S. government.

          And not because BB&T had failed, as so many other banks had in the terrifying banking crisis of 2008. No, BB&T was being punished because it had succeeded.

          BB&T had made no subprime mortgage loans. While other banks blew themselves up with high-fee negative amortization and “pick- a-payment” loans that supported a cancerous housing bubble, BB&T resisted temptation and wrote only conventional mortgages.

          Yet after Congress enacted the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), banking regulators forced even healthy banks to take government money, that is, to accept the government as a shareholder. That meant committing to pay the government hundreds of millions in preferred dividends, and giving up valuable warrants so that the government could later purchase common stock at fire-sale prices. Adding insult to injury, Allison had to sign a waiver that allowed the government to unilaterally change the terms of his compensation from the company he’d served for 38 years.

          But he had no choice. BB&T was a strong bank, with more than enough capital and more than enough liquidity to see it through the crisis, and a strong loan portfolio. Yet his banking examiner from the federal government told him that the rules had suddenly changed.

          According to Allison, “They called us and said, ‘Okay, we’ve had these capital rules forever, and you guys got a lot more capital based on those rules. But we’ve decided we’re going to have some new capital rules. And based on these new capital rules, we don’t think you have enough capital. Now, we don’t know what the rules are, but we’re confident that if you don’t take the TARP money, you won’t have enough capital.’ ”1

          Allison knew that the bank examiner was just a messenger boy for his bosses in Washington, D.C., where the Federal Reserve under chairman Ben Bernanke was desperate to save a few insolvent mega- banks, even if the entire banking system had to pay the bill do it.….

        • gator69 says:

          And that Gail, is why I object to the term “banksters”, because it smears an entire industry when in fact it was a collusion of a few men and our government. We should be focusing our fire on the real enemy, which is the government, and we provide cover for them when we direct criticism at anything else.

  4. emsnews says:

    I used to work at RPI in Troy! In the computer fabrication laboratory.

    Congratulations, professor! Kisses! Now, like my famous astronomer dad, he will be shunned, attacked and abused. I hope he can withstand this in the future. Bravo.

  5. emsnews says:

    RPI is being DESTROYED.

    This is why I was fired. The battles that rage there!!! The place is being looted.

    • Anthony S says:

      My uncle runs the machine shop, and over the past several years, he has relayed that the professors are not happy with how the school is being run by the administrators.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    The US President seems to be doing a Lord Nelson, turning a blind eye…
    http://jonathangifford.com/april-2nd-1801-i-see-no-ships-horatio-nelson-turns-a-blind-eye-at-the-battle-of-copenhagen/

  7. markstoval says:

    This blog takes shots at Democratic politicians a lot. As a radical libertarian I can agree with you most anytime you take a shot at a pol. They all are crooks and thieves. Obama is truly worthy of any abuse you can heap upon him — just tell the truth and he will think you are giving him hell. (h/t Harry Truman)

    But I take to my keyboard today to write to you and suggest we work on the real strength of the blog. I was reading this: “NOAA’s Data Debacle …Alterations Ruin 120 Years Of Painstakingly Collected Weather Data” … http://notrickszone.com/2015/07/07/noaas-data-debacle-alterations-ruin-120-years-of-painstakingly-collected-weather-data/ … and it came to me that it would be nice to be able to find the posts you have done by category somehow. What I am trying to say is that it would be nice to look up “data tampering by NOAA” or whatever real fast.

    Or maybe a long post that is an “executive summery” of data tampering with links to the original posts. I think that an “executive summery” might be damn nice to refer to and to show the low information people who have not studied the issue.

    Think it over Mr. Heller.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    OK Gator, I will modify that to the International Banking Cartel. Remember it is the Banking Cartel (and other cartels) that own our politicians and not the other way round.

    Top Senate Democrat: bankers “own” the U.S. Congress

    Sen. Dick Durbin, on a local Chicago radio station this week, blurted out an obvious truth about Congress that, despite being blindingly obvious, is rarely spoken: “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” The blunt acknowledgment that the same banks that caused the financial crisis “own” the U.S. Congress — according to one of that institution’s most powerful members — demonstrates just how extreme this institutional corruption is.

    The ownership of the federal government by banks and other large corporations is effectuated in literally countless ways, none more effective than the endless and increasingly sleazy overlap between government and corporate officials…

    Former Barney Frank staffer now top Goldman Sachs lobbyist

    Goldman Sachs’ new top lobbyist was recently the top staffer to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., on the House Financial Services Committee chaired by Frank. Michael Paese, a registered lobbyist for the Securities Industries and Financial Markets Association since he left Frank’s committee in September, will join Goldman as director of government affairs, a role held last year by former Tom Daschle intimate, Mark Patterson, now the chief of staff at the Treasury Department. This is not Paese’s first swing through the Wall Street-Congress revolving door: he previously worked at JP Morgan and Mercantile Bankshares, and in between served as senior minority counsel at the Financial Services Committee….

    So: Paese went from Chairman Frank’s office to be the top lobbyist at Goldman, and shortly before that, Goldman dispatched Paese’s predecessor, close Tom Daschle associate Mark Patterson, to be Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, himself a protege of former Goldman CEO Robert Rubin and a virtually wholly owned subsidiary of the banking industry. That’s all part of what Desmond Lachman — American Enterprise Institute fellow, former chief emerging market strategist at Salomon Smith Barney and top IMF official (no socialist he) – recently described as “Goldman Sachs’s seeming lock on high-level U.S. Treasury jobs.”…..

    That is the lobbyists.

    You can also look at the top donors to political campaigns and find, aside from all the unions donating $1,201,214,350 to the dems, banks/financial institutions donating $365,135,131 Between the two that is $1,566,349,481 or $10 for every person in the civilian work force.

    In February, the civilian non-institutional population – consisting of all citizens 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution – was 249,899,000 “Of that number, 157,002,000 (62.8 percent of the population) participated in the labor force by either having a job or actively searching for one, according to BLS data….the labor participation rate of the next age group, those who are 55 years and older, was just 32.4 percent…The last time the labor participation rate dropped below 63 percent was 37 years ago, in March 1978 when it was 62.8 percent” — Also not good.

    Here is a sampling:
    #8 National Assn of Realtors – $68,683,359 -49% to Dems, 52% to Repubs

    #15 Goldman Sachs – $52,230,718 – 54% to Dems, 47% to Repubs

    #19 Soros Fund Management -$44,442,608 – 98% to Dems, 2% to Repubs

    #27 Citigroup Inc $35,378,135 49% to Dems, 52% to Repubs

    #28 JPMorgan Chase & Co $34,652,053 48% to Dems, 52% to Repubs

    #29 American Bankers Assn $34,593,894 35% to Dems, 65% to Repubs

    #45 Bank of America $29,532,005 41% to Dems, 59% to Repubs

    #49 Morgan Stanley $28,557,117 43% to Dems, 57% to Repubs

    There are a heck of a lot of medical industry types listed too. It is an interesting list to read. For example Las Vegas Sands, the largest casino firm in the US is #7. Not surprising given the crack down on corruption in China.
    High rollers with known ties to the Triad, China’s mafia, have been chased off the island recently. Even the once-untouchable relatives of Macau’s casino scions are getting busted for illegal activity. It’s a new world in which kings are getting overthrown… “We know that Asian high rollers have been very important to Las Vegas,”

    • Gail Combs says:

      Following up on the major shift in power from individuals to the corporate cartels:

      When Lobbying was Illegal

      …If you want your elected politicians and freedom of speech, you have to accept corporations that pay real life Remy Dantons to tweak legislation, influence votes, and lobby for tax breaks…. [ Freedom of speech is the right of an INDIVIDUAL HUMAN. Since when is freedom of speech a right of an nonhuman entity, that is a corporation? This is a really good example of the twisted logic that has eviscerated the Constitution.]

      From their headquarters on Washington DC’s K Street, lobbyists earn about $3.5 billion in fees every year. That amount grows at around 7-8% per year, and it doesn’t include the cash companies and individuals pour into politicians’ campaign coffers to make them more responsive to their appeals. In addition, nearly half of all Congressmen now take lobbying jobs. Lobbying is simply a massive, accepted part of democratic life….

      ….For much of America’s history, lobbying was not only looked down upon but even illegal in a number of states. Describing this history in a recent paper, legal scholar Zephyr Teachout writes that until the 1950s, “courts treated paid lobbying as a civic wrong, not a protected First Amendment right.”…..

      The constitution guarantees freedom of speech and the right to appeal to lawmakers, but as Teachout writes, courts regarded lobbying as having no protected legal status because of the incredible potential for corruption and political cynicism if lobbying became an accepted practice…..
      In a 1874 case, an old man sent a lawyer to collect a debt the federal government owed him in return for a commission. Typical of the prevailing opinion, the Supreme Court refused to enforce even this contract, ruling:

      If any of the great corporations of the country were to hire adventurers who make market of themselves in this way, to procure the passage of a general law with a view to the promotion of their private interests, the moral sense of every right-minded man would instinctively denounce the employer and employed as steeped in corruption and the employment as infamous… If the instances were numerous, open, and tolerated, they would be regarded as measuring the decay of the public morals and the degeneracy of the times. No prophetic spirit would be needed to foretell the consequences near at hand.

      The turning point in the legitimization of lobbying came in the early to mid 20th century…. As late as 1941, the Supreme Court ruled against a lobbying contract, ruling that “law has given [them] no sanction” and stating that ‘‘Contracts to spread such insidious influences through legislative halls have long been condemned.”

      Too bad we no longer have those Supreme Court justices. Instead we have the traitors that gave corporations not only personhood but the ability to pour unlimited funds into influencing ‘our’ representatives.

      Also SEE: Significant U.S. Court Cases in the Evolution of Corporate Personhood

    • Gail Combs says:

      I am a capitalist but I agree with E.M. Smith

      The basic “issue” is that government is best when it is absolutely minimal, driven from the bottom up by locals and local to the people, and leaves most decisions to free actors in a free market (only acting to keep the market free and fair via preventing collusion, trusts, and monopoly).

      The EU, and increasingly, the USA: Is tending to maximal government, driven from the top down from far far away ignoring the local people, and having most decisions made by paid actors of the government with no clue what The People want (or even worse, not caring at all what The People want) often acting to prevent market forces and pushing the agenda of those who collude, form trusts, and want monopoly power; frequently in a Government-Industry consortium oligopoly.

      The original USA was set up to be of the first form. Local Sheriff was the head law enforcement officer in any local area. Counties had State Senators. States had Federal Senators. Everything from the bottom up. Over the decades, one bit at at time, power has shifted to central control. The end game is always collapse of Empire. Only the details change.

      link

      Also see E.M. Smith’s “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism”

      • rah says:

        Although I agree with the concept of minimal government it does need to be able to bust trusts, have some ability to regulate the market and generally be able to keep a level playing field so that those that have cannot oppress or abuse those that don’t.

        We have gone so far beyond that though I don’t see a path to ever going back.

        • Gail Combs says:

          RAH, note that E.M. addresses the “the agenda of those who collude, form trusts, and want monopoly power”

          Also our government initially addressed the issue by giving corporations a 20 year life span at which point they had to ASK for renewal. This included the central bank.

          “Unless the corrupting monster should be shraven with its ill gotten power, my veto will meet it frankly & fearlessly.”

          President Andrew Jackson to John Coffee,
          February 19, 1832

          Congress established the First Bank of the United States in 1791 to serve as a repository for Federal funds. Its charter expired in 1811, but in 1816 Congress created a Second Bank of the United States with a charter set to expire in 1836. By the 1830s the Bank had become a volatile political issue. Some, especially in the trans-Appalachian West, were suspicious of banks because they distrusted the paper money issued by them and because banks controlled credit and loans. To them, the Bank of the United States was the worst of them all: a greedy monopoly dominated by the rich American and foreign interests…..
          http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/treasures_of_congress/text/page9_text.html

          See Hidden History of Corporations in the United States for the history of the fight to control corporations that we, the People, have resoundingly lost.

      • Glenn999 says:

        Gail
        I might agree with the prohibition on corporations, but what about unions? I thought the decision on corporations was because it offset the rights of unions to make contributions. Probably don’t understand it as well as you seem to, but are you suggesting that only individuals, by themselves, should be allowed to contribute, and is there an individual cap there as well?
        Thanks

  9. cfgj says:

    What is stopping skeptics from publishing kick-ass science? Is it the sinister conspiracy again?

    • gator69 says:

      What is stopping you from posting intelligent comments?

      1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

      Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

      What is stopping grantologists from publishing kick-ass science that refutes natural variability? Is it the sinister conspiracy again?

      • Gail Combs says:

        Beat me to it Gator. (Don’t you feel like you are kicking a whiny toddler though.)

        • gator69 says:

          No, I don’t. Even toddlers learn eventually, we are kicking a wilfully ignorant POS.

          Each of its posts further demonstrates the breadth and depth of its ignorance. Obviously from this latest post, it has never bothered to rersearch the actual arguments of both sides.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Careful you do not stub a toe on the concrete.

  10. Gail Combs says:

    Jo Nova refutes cfgj’s comments on skeptic scientists (See the body of the text and the links) and brings good news. It looks like there maybe some politicians Down Under with intestinal fortitude. (China and Greece doing a nose dive will hopefully light a fire under their buttocks.)

    Climate scientists: More scared of an inquiry into the science than they are of climate change

  11. Justa Joe says:

    He may be a Nobel laureate, but anybody could have predicted BHO’s reaction to someone that disagrees with the official BHO sanctioned AGW BS. With BHO support is a one way street.

    It makes the Nobel laureate look a little foolish to have ever supported BHO.

Leave a Reply to Anthony S Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s