re: #25 jlakely

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

I will say this for now:

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.