In Lindau aan het Bodenmeer vindt jaarlijks een bijeenkomst plaats, waar Nobelprijswinnaars elkaar op de hoogte stellen van de resultaten van hun recente onderzoek op vele wetenschappelijke terreinen. Dit keer werd ook aandacht aan het klimaat geschonken.
Sprekers tijdens dit onderdeel van het programma waren Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina en Ivar Giaever. Over de laatste schreef ik al eerder naar aanleiding van het feit dat hij zijn lidmaatschap van de APS ('American Physical Society') had opgezegd wegens hun klimaatstandpunt.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: '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?"
Reeds ruime tijd daarvoor had de internationaal meest geciteerde Nederlandse klimatoloog en voormalig directeur wetenschappelijk onderzoek van het KNMI, Henk Tennekes, om overeenkomstige redenen zijn lidmaatschap van de KNAW opgezegd. Dit heeft destijds niet de krantenkoppen gehaald, ondanks het feit dat dit bij mijn weten nooit eerder is gebeurd in de geschiedenis van de KNAW.
Op de blog van de 'Scientific American' rapporteert Mariette DiChristina over de voordrachten van Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina en Ivar Giaever.
Returning to the concerns of this blue marble, Paul Crutzen, who shared the 1995 Nobel with Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland, for their work in understanding the formation and destruction of ozone, outlined the numerous changes that humanity has wrought during the “anthropocene.” He listed, among others, the increase in carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, pollutants such as excess nitrogen from fertilizers, and the rising use of potable water. He associated a global average temperature increase of 0.7 degrees C with problems such as decreased snow cover. “The warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” he added.
Continuing on this theme, Molina illustrated the start of his talk with a photo of the oasis-like Earth against the backdrop of space. We are “stressing the natural capacity of the atmosphere to deal with the unwanted side products of human activity,” he warned. He noted that the science community increasingly finds it more likely that instances of wild weather (such as floods, fires) could be associated with climate change. “The scientific evidence is really overwhelming. Most experts agree; maybe two or three in 100 disagree.” He added, “I know who they are and why they are wrong.” Anticipating the next speaker, Ivar Gieavaer, who shared the 1973 prize for work on tunneling in superconductors but was to offer a skeptical take on climate change, Molina said that critics aren’t usually the experts. Listening to them, he added, is like going to your dentist when you have a heart problem.
As he took the stage for his turn, Gieavar’s immediate remark was, “I am happy I’m allowed to speak for myself.” He derided the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri a peace prize, and called agreement with the evidence of climate change a “religion.” In contrast to Crutzen and Molina, Gieavar found the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case: “What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.” He disagreed that carbon dioxide was involved and showed several charts that asserted, among other things, that climate had even cooled. “I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker picked and chose when he gave his talk,” he added. He finished with a pronouncement: “Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely.”
Lees verder hier.
En zo dringt het klimaatsceptische geluid zo langzamerhand ook door tot in de hoogste regionen van de wetenschap, vertolkt door wetenschappelijke zwaargewichten.
Voor mijn eerdere DDS-bijdragen, zie: