Published on Jul 12, 2015
Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever’s speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015.
Ivar points out the mistakes which Obama makes in his speeches about global warming, and shares other not-well known facts about the state of the climate.
Copyright is owned by 2015 Council for the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings.
This is for educational purposes only and is not a commercial use.
According to their terms (See end of video) Lindau allow non-commercial sharing and embedding of this video.
He admits to not being a climate scientist, and to having done his “research” on Google. No wonder, since he has made no effort to understand the underlying science. No wonder, since he sells his reputation as a scientist to the Heartland Institute, presumably for cash to fund his retirement. He believes 1 degree of temperature increase is not significant, when the research indicates that 2-3 degrees produces very negative results–why would we want to take that risk? He refers to satellite data, which infers temperature measurement by measuring the microwave radiation of oxygen molecules…satellites do not measure temperatures! And the reason climate scientists don’t use satellite data is because they know it is unreliable…every little wobble of a satellite throws off the measurement. Instead, they use thousands of thermometers…remarkable! He refers to CO2 being good for plants…yet those who do research in the field point out that those benefits are very limited to specific types of plants, and offset by other negatives. Plants, for example need water. Droughts mean less water. Not good. Bottom line: he thinks we should make a huge gamble and bet against the scientific consensus. If he is wrong, we all suffer and our prosperity is threatened. If we address the issue, we simply price carbon, move our economy in a cleaner direction over time, and can structure it (by using the revenues to reduce other taxes which constrain growth) to increase GDP at a faster rate, driving greater prosperity for all. Which frankly would make sense even if AGW were a crock.
He didn’t do his research on google, he researched his own name on Google. However, he points out that climate measuring stations are missing from Antartica where the temperature is decreasing. Also the distribution of thermometers is weighted too heavily to the northern hemisphere and the tropic stations are few and far between. As the urbanization effect of cities as they grow affects local temperature, you will see an increase in ground temps as an effect of heat radiation. That is well known. If that is not compensated for, then the data are skewed. If adding the ocean temps in the data is only in the last couple of years, it skews the 100 year graph that has not included ocean temps. Ocean temps are from satellite data. If water levels have increased 22mm every century for the past three centuries, then we are in an overall warming trend, started before the increase in green house gases. That is consistent with overall climate change. We are still not nearly as warm as in the 1300’s where Greenland was actually green.
Finally, you don’t have to be specifically a climate “scientist” to understand statistics and measurements and the misuse of data and making conclusions based upon insufficient evidence. My oldest son is a research scientist, post grad from Johns Hopkins and is well aware of how stats are misused and he does not believe the data used for conclusions in climate change are sufficient or settled.
As Disreali said, three types of lies. “lies, damned lies, and statistics”