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

a reply to: yorkshirelad

I cede no understanding at any beyond a high school level.

I do understand spin and avoidance of direct answers.

For example, you cite the bumble bee. One species. We lose species almost daily and have for thousands of years. In the 'big picture' that's not even slightly significant.

Next who linked the bumble bee to climate change? No other factors such as pesticides, human encroachment, etc.?

Climate change has been occurring since "day eight", one could presume, therefore the loss of a species would be considered normal.

Therefore, inductive logic brings me to conclude you have no scientific nor logical response....other than I don't understand.

Do you really believe that we are shills for corporations? That we want some global disaster?

What I believe is there is no area of expertise that hasn't been corrupted by political correctness, agenda and vested interest.

I place more faith in a man that says, "wait a minute" and is willing to take the heat for bucking the trend.

He, at least, merits listening to and pondering his points. Not questioning his expertise when many on these threads question the integrity of 'your' experts.

You have done nothing to alter my views, in fact, you re-enforce them.

a reply to: TownCryer

I have yet to read any post on this thread that denies climate change. In fact, climate change is obvious, continuous...virtually a constant.

The article said Obama was dead wrong. That was the title of the thread.

What is it with you people?

Do people trust their priests? Their politicians? Their bosses?

Why would you think we should treat the technocrat/scientist any differently? Simplest solution is see who funded his research. Simple really.

When the occasional...and now increasing members of that community are saying 'wait a minute', not to mention ex-NASA types, weather channel execs, so on, I would expect reasonable, thinking and educated people to sit up and take notice.

Otherwise the article is spot on. A virtual religious fervor. It approaches insanity.

originally posted by: intrptr

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…

This.

If the establishment was actually concerned about global warming or invested in fixing the problem, they'd be doing a hell of a lot more then playing with money in it's multitude of forms.

There are a lot of solutions out there and ways to adapt that would need to be done. We'd need to address our infrastructure, our architecture, our towns & cities, and our ways of life. The only things that are being promoted are dependency on the government and a speculative bubble market of taxes, credit, and monopolies. The much more real threat to the planet is our resource management and the toxins that we're dumping into the environment. And those things aren't and won't be addressed, because you know, money.

a reply to: nemonimity

Spot on, I reckon.

Now add in the 'scientific community' which also doesn't comment on the fallacy of 'carbon taxes' and the failure to apply the same standards towards the , so-called, developing nations like China and India-bigger polluters by far than the U.S.- and these advocates for human caused climate change wonder where the skepticism comes from??

It's almost beyond believe that anyone buys into their scientific arguments when all that emanates is the 'problem' with no solutions from the same or comments upon the hilarious solutions that the politicians put forth.

Moral high ground for our scientific community? I think not.

Back to the general comments by the author of the article and one can see where he's coming from and perhaps the exaggerated comments, likey in amazement, that he put forth.

a reply to: nemonimity

And those things aren't and won't be addressed, because you know, money.

Shows the control the corporations have over the government and media.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Sure, a well known scientist with no history of climate research of his own comes out with a list of wingnut talking points that are easily scientifically refuted just because of the goodness of his heart - but does not bother to publish a single paper on the topic that can be peer reviewed. If he truly had some data to take down climate science, he would publish it somewhere.

a reply to: openminded2011

OK. Now what about his points?

Are they valid or not? He isn't in the field, but has looked at the points put for by the 'community'.

I'm not saying he's right, BUT, why would a Nobel Prize winning set himself up for the inevitable ridicule if didn't believe what he was asserting?

The only knee jerk response so far to that question is he's probably getting paid by a corporation. It seems the standard response to any that questions the conclusions drawn by those in the field.

The Green Pease co-founder(?), the former CEO of the weather channel, various conflicting reports from NASA...they are out there and the mantra is attack the individual....

Personally, I'm glad there are individuals that wear the hat of skeptic in the scientific community. I gives me a small hope that there's still integrity in the community.

That same community refuses to rebuke the carbon tax, or the exemptions for 'developing nations' or any of the political moves that do little to improve the 'situation'.

I have a very hard time granting any automatic 'rubber stamp' to these guys due to that obvious hypocrisy.

originally posted by: openminded2011
a reply to: nwtrucker

If he truly had some data to take down climate science, he would publish it somewhere.

No he wouldn't because no one would publish it, and the status quo would simply deride him as a quack, and people like you would say "look all these scientists say he is wrong and he's a quack, so he must be a quack".

There was once this guy who said the earth wasn't the center of the universe, while everyone else said it was......

He got locked up but he was still right - weight of numbers of an opinion means nothing.

Anyway, I honestly don't think most of you have a clue how academia works. I know a professor of economics who studies a form of economics that would make the world a fairer, happier place, but it has been forbidden by the powers that be.

It has even been labelled (after WW2) as anti-semitic - yes an economic theory is apparently evil!

Anyway, if an academic dares to publish anything about it not only are they labelled "Nazis", but they are also ridiculed by every man and his dog, they then lose their funding and their career is over.

That is how it works - if you don't toe the line then your money gets cut off, you lose your job, and you are black-balled and will never get another academic job ever again.

This is why you need to throw what you BELIEVE out of the window, start again with a totally open mind, LOOK at the ACTUAL EVIDENCE - not opinions or what other people tell you it means in their opinion, or how other people tell you that you should interpret the evidence - and THINK.

This attitude that we've been encouraged to adopt of not learning, not thinking, and forming our opinions because someone with a fancy title or working for an important sounding organisation tells us what to think, is what has got us into the mess we're in today, and it is PURE propaganda aimed at controlling public opinion as developed by Bernays.

And sadly it's working.

Uuhhh, OK. 'You people'? What's THAT about ?

Anyway, as I tried to express in my original reply to your post, I support this latest scientist's right to make whatever assertions he'd like. However, him simply announcing that he doesn't agree with the majority of experts who think otherwise, doesn't mean that he should instantly be recognized as someone with more insight/authority/smarts than the majority scientists - the ones who do believe that the 'climate change' that we're discussing here is the type brought on/accentuated by the activities of the human race, as oppsed to the naturae climate change that, as you pointed out, occurs normally.

...geez.

a reply to: nwtrucker

a reply to: ManFromEuropeMe thinks it is a matter of science;
ie the sun, how much the solar median is dropping or rising
volcanoism, the ring of fire is supposedly in another 49 year cycle
and of course the ocean currents which are the drivers of real weather interacting with the magnetosphere around earh

a reply to: TownCryer

His data. That's what the A"you people" is about.

Since when a truth dictated by, and I quote you, the majority?

Since when does an initial truth NOT conflict with the majority...ever?

The validity or lack thereof has zero to do with majority.

Please read power_semi's post and you might see it in another light. Again, he may very well be wrong, at least consider what he says.

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...

Speaking of the catholic church... does anyone else find it odd that the pope has basically endorsed every policy of the left? I mean, these are the policies of the party who booed the addition of god and israel back into their platform.

I'd say the 'original' truth of the majority was that there's no such thing as man-made climate change. That 'truth' has since come under some scrutiny. If this scientist you're referencing is suggesting that there's no connection between man's activities and the seemingly significant climate changes we're are experiencing now, I'd say he's not breaking new ground - he's encouraging us to go backward in our thinking. And, since when is 'truth' dictated by the majority? Is that a real question? If everybody in the world, except one guy, is telling me it's raining outside, I'm likely to believe that it's raining outside, even if I didn't go out there to check it myself. If the majority of real scientists are telling me that at least part of today radical weather is due to man's less then ecological pursuits, I'm probably going to believe them, even if I don't do the research myself. Now I'm not telling you what to believe, of course. I fully support your right to think whatever you want.


a reply to: nwtrucker

a reply to: TownCryer

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. You may very well be right.

There have been multiple post by those who have direct experience with academia P.C. and internal pressures to avoid the 'what about this?' and so on.

I also pointed out the non-response from those same scientists that endorse this line of reasoning and assuming the seriousness that is purported, that protest from these guys would be forthcoming about inanities like carbon taxes which have produced no reduction in carbon emissions, merely adjustments in cash payments. One would think this would create outcry from the very people that warn us of climate change.

This has not occurred.

Add in the more than one voice of dissent and that adds up to me worthy of a second look at all the data, rather than an 'all-in' mentality one way or the other.

In general, I distrust our Judicial, our legislative, our executive branches, law enforcement, corporations, pretty much all of them have some degree or another of vested interests.

I see no reason to exclude our centers of higher learning, science in general and those dealing with climate change, especially. They have the additional barrier of the lack of data to base their suppositions on.

I just googled the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere. The answer was slightly over 20%. When I was in school in the sixties that number was 15%....interesting....