Nobel Winner Questions Global Warming As Settled Science

We are always being told that the science is settled regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and Climate Change. People like Al Gore say the subject is not up for debate. It's incontrovertible; and, any deniers are simply on the take from big corporations as a means of fighting the change needed to save the planet from AGW. But, even today, Einstein's theory of relativity is being constantly tested and re-validated. So, why, then, is Global Warming/Climate Change so sacrosanct? The answer is simple: Any discussion and debate might actually expose the fraud of the so-called settled science of AGW.

Just recently, a Nobel laureate physicist, Dr. Ivar Giaever, resigned from the prestigious American Physical Society (APS) because that organization had a policy of not allowing debate or discussion on the subject of Global Warming. (Click here to See Story: Nobel laureate quits group over warming) In leaving, he sent an email to the "society" in which he stated: "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 went on to further say: "The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degrees Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period..."

Without directly saying it, Dr. Giaever is implying that the science behind mankind-driven warming might not be "as" settled as implied by the warming alarmists and the subject should absolutely be up for debate. What is more astounding about Dr. Giaever's current position is that, in 2008, he was a supporter of Barack Obama and Mr. Obama's pledge to fight Global Warming. But, since then, Dr. Giaever has joined more than 100 scientists who now think AGW is being exaggerated. This kind of talk from Giaever is what the politicians and scientists behind the "incontrovertibility" of AGW have always feared. For them any debate might jeopardize the politically-driven social change that they all believe AGW affords them.

Lastly, I've always wondered why we have so many scientists in this world still being "paid" to research Global Warming and Climate Change. Isn't this in direct contradiction to the fact that the science is settled? Isn't that rather akin to beating a dead horse? Once again, to me, actions seem to speak louder than words. Especially Al Gore's!