Tag Archives: how to judge the truth?



Global temperature changes are welcomed by some people! (http://dr-monsrs.net)
Global temperature changes are welcomed by many people!                                (http://dr-monsrs.net)


There continues to be very much controversy about warming of our planet between commercial, environmental, financial, and political interests.  Scientists also have differing opinions.  I have previously examined what happens when some scientists disagree with other scientists, and concluded that judging what is true often is made more complex and difficult by the agitated involvement of non-scientists bearing emotional appeals (see “What Happens When Scientists Disagree?  Part II: Why is There Such a Long Controversy About Global Warming and Climate Change?”.  That is exactly the status of the ongoing disputes about whether there actually is any global warming, whether human activities are causing it, and whether this is a crisis situation.

This dispatch looks at key points raised by Prof. Ivar Giaever, a solid state physicist who won a 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics for his breakthrough discoveries on electron tunneling in superconductors.  Dr. Giaever offers a very informative, readily understandable, and enjoyable video presentation about this controversy, which I urge all readers to view now (see: “Ivar Giaever: Global Warming Revisited (2015)” at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0 ).  His judgment is that some small global warming and global cooling do occur, but those are just part of normal cycles of temperature changes on Earth.

Let’s look at both sides of this dispute! 

The standard viewpoint in today’s media is that global warming is occurring, is caused by human activities that raise atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, and will result in undesirable elevation of sea levels due to disastrous melting of arctic and antarctic ice.  Dr. Giaever’s video centers on examining the quantitative evidence for global warming, its origin, and the proposed consequences of this shift in temperature.  To aid visitors in reaching a solid viewpoint, you should also watch a shallow video trying to trash Dr. Giaever and his conclusions, and favoring the standard viewpoint (see “Climate Denialism BS: Review of Dr Ivar Giaever’s ‘Expertise’ “, at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNLvG4c9F38 ).  Hopefully, you will try to form a more objective personal opinion about this very long-lived controversy.

Coming to a more objective evaluation about this controversy! 

When evaluating this ongoing dispute, watch for the most fundamental question asked by all research scientists, “What is the evidence?”  And, watch for insertion of opinions and emotions coming from commercial companies, ignorant individuals, and politicians.  Although most scientists agree with Dr. Giaever’s conclusions, it does not matter at all how many expert scientists or public figures are willing to support any opinion.  What matters to science is cold hard evidence!

Several levels of questions must be raised about global warming (i.e., How much global warming is there?  Are the methods used to measure the ‘global temperature’ valid, and are enough locales being measured to make this a meaningful average?  Has such warming ever happened before?  How much temperature change is normal variation and how much is abnormal?  To what extent are human activities causing elevated temperatures?  Are raised levels of carbon dioxide bad or good?  Are expectations about the predicted effects of global warming realistic and verified by historical or current measurements?).  Prof. Giaever explicitly considers many of these in his presentation.

For myself, I see the conclusions of Prof. Giaever as being objective, and very convincing.  You are welcome to disagree once you have examined and rated both sides of this dispute; the Internet provides an easy way for you to do that!  Time will tell what is true!

Concluding remarks! 

Since many people and some doctoral scientists currently have disagreements about global warming, the actual evidence for judging its amount, cause(s), and effects must be carefully examined in order to judge what is true and what predictions are realistic.  The traditional means for dealing with disputes between scientists is to acquire more and better new research data, and that will be very helpful here!


For readers wishing to learn more about Prof. Giaever’s personality and activities as a research scientist, a very good video is available on the Internet (see “A Story of Research: Ivar Giaever – 1982” at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEzRfWM9gXo  ).