The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."
"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."

Below is the full text of Dr. Ivar Giaever's full letter of resignation to the APS:
From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:giaever@XXXX.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: kirby@aps.org
Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS
Dear Ms. Kirby
Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
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.
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.
Best regards,
Ivar Giaever
Nobel Laureate 1973
PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.

********************************************************************************************************
Ivar Giaever
XXX XXX
XXX
USA
Phone XXX XXX XXX
Fax XXX XXX XXX
#
End Reprint of Giaever's email.
#

One of the other signers of the APS skeptical petition was Nobel Prize winner in Physics E.O. Lawrence.
E. O. Lawrence, Award in Physics 1985 Oliver E. Buckley Prize (APS) 1986 Nobel Prize in Physics 1998 Member National Academy of Sciences; Fellow AAAS
Lawrence signed on the statement that read in part: "As current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned petition the APS Council to commission an independent, objective study and assessment of the science relating to the question of anthropogenic global warming."
Other Nobel Prize-Winning scientists featured in Climate Depot's more than 1000 international scientists who have declared their skepticism include:
Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rejected global warming orthodoxy in 2010. ―Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation,‖ Laughlin wrote in July 2010 in The American Scholar. Earth has suffered ―all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict. Yet, the Earth is still here. It's a survivor...Earth doesn't care whether you turn off your AC, refrigerator and TV. It doesn't notice when you turn down your thermostat and drive a hybrid car,‖ Laughlin wrote. ―You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations,‖ he added. ―Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself,‖ Laughlin explained. He continued: ―Global warming forecasts have the further difficulty that you can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. In principle, changes in climate should show up in rainfall statistics, hurricane frequency, temperature records, and so forth. As a practical matter they don't, because weather patterns are dominated by large multi-year events in the oceans, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation, which have nothing to do with climate change. In order to test the predictions, you'd have to separate these big effects from subtle, inexorable changes on scales of centuries, and nobody knows how to do that yet.
Renowned agricultural scientist Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as the father of the "Green Revolution" for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the Congressional Gold Medal. Borlaug also declared himself skeptical of man-made climate fears in 2007. "I do believe we are in a period where, no question, the temperatures are going up. But is this a part of another one of those (natural) cycles that have brought on glaciers and caused melting of glaciers?" Borlaug asked, according to a September 21, 2007 article in Saint Paul Pioneer Press. The article reported that Borlaug is "not sure, and he doesn't think the science is, either." Borlaug added, "How much would we have to cut back to take the increasing carbon dioxide and methane production to a level so that it's not a driving force?" We don't even know how much." [Note: Borlaug died in 2009]

The books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible.

The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Meh. Appeal to authority (which, I preemptively note, is different than an appeal to expertise).

It's hardly an appeal to authority to point out that authorities on the subject disagree, and therefore the question is unresolved.

You realize that the only argument that Climate Change alarmists have ever made is "appeal to authority?"

You realize that the only argument that Climate Change alarmists have ever made is "appeal to authority?" None of their stated evidence ever matched their arguments, and when that got pointed out to them, they conveniently lost their original source data.

It's a no win-argument.

If someone points out that the data doesn't seem to match the conclusions, you get hit with a "Well, you're not a scientist. You don't understand. The scientific community has a consensus!" You point out that a very large percentage of scientists don't concede the consensus, and provide examples, you get hit with a "That's an appeal to authority!"

"Screw the Grankids: I'm cold now"
-Drew Carey

Like I noted, "appeal to authority" is not the same as "appeal to expertise." The former is a logical fallacy; the latter is not. So far as I can tell, Dr. Giaever's area of study has nothing to do with climate.

Like I noted, "appeal to authority" is not the same as "appeal to expertise." The former is a logical fallacy; the latter is not. So far as I can tell, Dr. Giaever's area of study has nothing to do with climate.

Like I noted, "appeal to authority" is not the same as "appeal to expertise." The former is a logical fallacy; the latter is not. So far as I can tell, Dr. Giaever's area of study has nothing to do with climate.

Incidentally, "Jim as an automotive expert; therefore, whatever he says about cars must be true" is absolutely a fallacy.

What exctly qualifies you to say it's "not even close"?

Again, any physicist should be more than qualified to look at such basic information as average change in degrees Kelvin and evaluate whether it's important or not. Any physicist; hell, any layman can look at a claim to have measured the average temperature of the entire Earth and know something's wrong.

What you're doing here is a reverse of appeal to authority. You're just proclaiming this guy "not an authority" based on nothing more than your own say-so that his expertise is "not even close" and demanding everyone dismiss him based on that proclamation.