“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Giaever, who won the Nobel for physics in 1973, told an audience at the Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting earlier this month.
Giaever ridiculed Obama for stating that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” The physicist called it a “ridiculous statement” and that Obama “gets bad advice” when it comes to global warming.
“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said.
Snopes is actually the only place where you can watch the video of Dr. Ivar Giaever's comments. However, the author there criticizes Dr. Giaever's comments because Dr. Giaever did not give it much thought before he was on a panel about it. However, that author has no idea what is involved in Science and quotes another article that claims that Climate Science is different:
While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows. He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101, and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion.
Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which he has not even done the most basic research. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized.
The problem that I have is that science and the scientific method are identical across all the different sciences. When you run experiments, you want your instruments to be accurate and you want the data from the same source to be identical across different instruments using similar measurement systems. This is called accuracy and precision, respectively. Temperatures, tree ring measurements, rock strata measurements, and even Carbon dating use the same principles when used as data. They need to be precise and accurate in order to be any good to come up with a theory.
I keep telling people that Climate Science is no good because the basic theory relies on data that is in the 90th Percentile at best. This means it is not accurate and not precise. Error, which is what we are talking about is not linear, it is exponential in growth. This is why data has to be in the 95th Percentile or better in order to be considered good. If data like temperatures are being adjusted by whole units they are no good as data points; because the error is enormous. You want accuracy and precision to be good to the thousandths place. What I mean here is data accurate and precise to 95 degrees is not good. That data has to be accurate and precise to say 95.015 degrees to be considered in the 95th Percentile.
This lack of scientific knowledge by the general public is what has allowed "Climate Science" to take root. Even basic measurement knowledge in regards to science is being ignored in favor of the politically correct statement by politicians in regards to the "Climate Change" narrative. And, when someone who knows how scientific measurements need to be taken speaks up, like Dr. Giaever, they are criticized as if they know nothing because they only did a general overview of the political arguments and found the science behind those political arguments lacking.