Yet another scientist, this one a Nobel winner, says Obama is dead wrong about climate change

More evidence the whole issue isn't an 'issue'.

I really enjoyed where he positioned the global warming crowd as religious fanatics and compared them to the Catholic Church....

eaglerising.com...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
More evidence the whole issue isn't an 'issue'.

I really enjoyed where he positioned the global warming crowd as religious fanatics and compared them to the Catholic Church....

eaglerising.com...

What!!!

He stole that from me!

I've been saying that Climate Change believers are really Climate Change Worshipers here on ATS for a very long time.

They do employ ISIS tactics.
One leader, I believe
it was Al Gore
who said climate change deniers should be jailed
www.newsmax.com...

Another believer said climate change deniers should be killed
www.americanthinker.com...

Obama called climate change deniers a threat to national security (ie a type of terrorist)
www.theguardian.com...
thehill.com...

This kind of over the top, ISIS like reaction, puts them in the religious fanatic camp to me.

They're right. Except for the tax put on emissions that is, global warming is a distraction for the very real current issue of environmental pollution.

But lets argue about the weather some instead…

a reply to: nwtrucker

Cool, he won Nobel for superconductors in 1973.

I found a quote from him though.

"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."link

a reply to: grandmakdw

Then well done on coming up with the correct assessment first!

I do recall about 20 years ago the movement likened to modern day druid worshippers...

a reply to: grimpachi

Good point. Ill-informed...or an objective assessment based on scientific analysis?

Listen, Barry isn't a scientist, he's just a puppet for the sociopathic vermin on Wall St. So give him a break will ya?

another good scientist about to be ridiculed to death.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: grimpachi

Good point. Ill-informed...or an objective assessment based on scientific analysis?

Oh right. He seems real knowledgeable on the subject. Afterall like he said;

I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google

a reply to: intrptr

I agree totally that it's a smoke screen for the pollution issue.

Although when the EPA has it's own satellite tasked to find polluting corporations in the U.S. and C-130s on permanent loan from the military for atmospheric testing that progress has been made and perhaps in some areas, as above, even over-done.

a reply to: nwtrucker

But that whole business has shifted into being a PC argument, a political argument, that they expect to win regardless.

"...Why do you hate the environment? Come! Jump onboard our PC lifeboat....it's the right thing to do."

(Sorry, Martha S.)

a reply to: grimpachi

Perhaps it doesn't take long if one is scientifically trained to look in the key areas....

Personally, I lean in his direction, if for no other reason is his science background without the technocratic bias within the well compensated community.

I also find his honest statement on that time spent investigating the issue actually a point in his favor towards believing his overall assessment.(not to mention he disagrees with Obama...)

a reply to: grimpachi

Howdy,

Woah now... Are you trying to suggest that just because this DR. of science (physics) learned what he knows about climate change online he is unqualified to discuss climate change? It's like you're trying to argue that if I had a doctorate in physics, I would be unqualified to perform heart surgery or something. Don't be ridiculous, plenty of people get heart surgery from Physicsians.

Also, do please look around you grimpachi. You don't need any fancy degree (in climate sciences or not) to discuss climate, you can find all that stuff online.

Now, as scientifically literate people, we should aknowledge this famous talking head's credentials as a Nobel Laureate, ignore scientific scrutiny of his work, and accept his opinion on a topic outside of his field on the basis of his Authority.

I am severely disappointed in your implications, sir.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: nwtrucker

I don't know about warming or efforts to stop it. CO2 is on the rise, highest ever from emissions, where thats going to lead we'll find out if we don't all die from cancer first.

Look me up in a hundred years…

a reply to: nwtrucker

Since when is Obama the benchmark for proof of global warming? Who cares what he thinks. There will be a catastrophic end to this planet and global warming has nothing to do with it. It is a non-issue.

a reply to: hydeman11

That was so subtle I think some will not catch it.

a reply to: HUMBLEONE

Absolutely! Blasphemy!

A proselytizing heretic....

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Please note the smiley face after the comment. This is called humor....

Otherwise, I agree. We have other issues that need to be dealt with.

a reply to: intrptr

Some sources cite the CO2 levels were dangerously low for optimum plant growth and is still about1/4 of the ideal level.