US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I

Gotta be politically correct, the term is 'climate change' nowadays.
My thoughts on this is that the earth is in constant change. Yes, it may be getting warmer and there is some evidence for that (i dont know if the numbers are done by a handful of scientists with an agenda as you claim) but the big question is, are we causing it? I believe the earth works in cycles on a much grander scale than most of humanity tends to think. I found an earth glaciation chart (from an 'evidence for global warming' site ironically enough, and it's a NASA website, which is not ironic at all) and the chart shows how the earths ice caps have melted down and frozen back up in a cycle, pretty uniformly over millions of years. I'm sure if humanity had come along during a period when the poles were freezing back over, we would be developing theories on how our society is contibuting to a 'global cooling'. At the same time, just sit in rush hour traffic and consciously think about what all those tailpipes are sending into our atmosphere. This is a tough question, and only a small amount of people have done the research and are qualified enough to talk about this. The last thing i need is for Bill O'Rielly to tell me whats going on over my head, this topic has been taken over by people with political agendas, as has just about every other topic. Fact is, Whether or not we have a hand in this climate change, it's at least a chance for us to realize what exactly we are doing to this earth, and search for new, clean energy options and ultimately end this damned love affair we have with resources that are not going to last.

BTW the website is here if anyones interested, i usually leave posts too long so people are too lazy to read so if you've made it this far thank you
rst.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

It kind of is in this situation. Most people don't understand the full science behind global warming, so who do you turn to?

Scientists.

Except there are scientists on every side that say mankind is involved, and others that say they don't. So, that's why we do turn to these organizations. The larger number of scientists who do say that we're helping global warming is far bigger then a few scientists who say it's not.

You can claim all you want that that one scientist could be correct. Well, he could be, but like I said before, who do you trust?

I trust all of the minds who say we're involved with this.

NO!!!

Using sheer numbers to prove "truth" is a fallacy of logic. Why can't you understand that?

Would you like for me to remind you of the NUMEROUS times in human history that the number of experts to agree on something scientific have been completely wrong??

Numbers who agree or disagree is absolutely irrelevant to the truth. It stands on it's own merits even if NO ONE agrees to it.

Sheer brainpower is what I'm going with.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


what are you talking about?

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

It kind of is in this situation. Most people don't understand the full science behind global warming, so who do you turn to?

Scientists.

Except there are scientists on every side that say mankind is involved, and others that say they don't. So, that's why we do turn to these organizations. The larger number of scientists who do say that we're helping global warming is far bigger then a few scientists who say it's not.

You can claim all you want that that one scientist could be correct. Well, he could be, but like I said before, who do you trust?

I trust all of the minds who say we're involved with this.

NO!!!

Using sheer numbers to prove "truth" is a fallacy of logic. Why can't you understand that?

Would you like for me to remind you of the NUMEROUS times in human history that the number of experts to agree on something scientific have been completely wrong??

Numbers who agree or disagree is absolutely irrelevant to the truth. It stands on it's own merits even if NO ONE agrees to it.

Sheer brainpower is what I'm going with.

Oh nice. You've moved from an Appeal to numbers fallacy to an Appeal to Authority one.

Is your brain wired to work on fallacies of logic????

There is an interesting record in Harold Lewis credentials that he was "Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter". It prompts to wonder if there is any historical conflict between promoters of nuclear winter and global warming campaigns. I always thought that both projects were run by almost the same people (like SARS/bird flu/swine flu)

Originally posted by farben
There is an interesting record in Harold Lewis credentials that he was "Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter". It prompts to wonder if there is any historical conflict between promoters of nuclear winter and global warming campaigns.

Yes, there is. He was a member of JASON, many of whose physicists have been associated with various forms of industry-funded denial campaigns (and also linked to free-market think-tanks like George Marshall).

Don't dig too deep, as the crinkly-nakedness of these crusty physicists will revolt you. Naomi Oreskes has done much of the work for you (see her most recent book - Merchants of Doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to climate science).

I see, he was debunking nuclear winter as well. It restores peace in my mind, though probably I'm disappointed

reply to post by bronwyn82


Sorry to say that this right and it is wrong. Global Warming IS a fact, and it IS a fact humans are helping the proses. There is no debating it. I'll give you one simple example out of hundreds to prove this.

Once the temperature raises enough on a global scale we could either side into an ice age or go the opposite way and end up like Mars.

It is proven that Aircraft alone creates a raise of about a half of a degree in temperature every year on planet earth. 1/2 a degree EVERY YEAR. You do the math. A contrail warms the earth by holding gasses in the atmosphere typically making it cooler during the day and warmer at night but over all raise the temperature throughout the year.

If you think it's all a hoax, you're not pay attention and I don't care if it's a "professor" making the claim. All that means is this person went to college, then got his masters at a university then took a teaching job. I work at a university, and you have to remember that many professors teach because that's the only job they could get and half of them don't know what there even talking about but their ego's are so big that they believe what they're saying is true. Just because you have a PHD and a professor doesn't mean your smart, it just means you passed the curriculum of a particular school in order to receive a degree from that school. NOTHING MORE!

Education is a bigger scam then global warming.

Hey, let you what. How about nobody gives a crap about the planet and lets all go buy hairspray and unload it into the air, because are planet is indestructible. No more regulations on pollutants, let's all die of cancer, yippy!!

Who's freaking side are you people on?

Originally posted by farben
I see, he was debunking nuclear winter as well. It restores peace in my mind, though probably I'm disappointed

The funny thing is that the first JASON report (Charney, 1979) on the issue of global warming actually predicted well what we are going through. It was only later when Reagan hit the scene that the obfuscation started to begin. Although not until the 90s till full-blown pathological denial broke-out. It's an interesting history.

Not sure if Hal Lewis was ever associated with the George Marshall Institute, but it wouldn't surprise me. They spent much of the 80s pushing for Reagan's SDI, then eventually moved into industry-funded denial (wherever regulation might be a solution, you'll find these ideologically-motivated think-tanks obfuscating the science/evidence).

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

It kind of is in this situation. Most people don't understand the full science behind global warming, so who do you turn to?

Scientists.

Except there are scientists on every side that say mankind is involved, and others that say they don't. So, that's why we do turn to these organizations. The larger number of scientists who do say that we're helping global warming is far bigger then a few scientists who say it's not.

You can claim all you want that that one scientist could be correct. Well, he could be, but like I said before, who do you trust?

I trust all of the minds who say we're involved with this.

NO!!!

Using sheer numbers to prove "truth" is a fallacy of logic. Why can't you understand that?

Would you like for me to remind you of the NUMEROUS times in human history that the number of experts to agree on something scientific have been completely wrong??

Numbers who agree or disagree is absolutely irrelevant to the truth. It stands on it's own merits even if NO ONE agrees to it.

Sheer brainpower is what I'm going with.

Oh nice. You've moved from an Appeal to numbers fallacy to an Appeal to Authority one.

Is your brain wired to work on fallacies of logic????

And is your brain worked to the fact that this is some global conspiracy that mankind has set up?

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

It kind of is in this situation. Most people don't understand the full science behind global warming, so who do you turn to?

Scientists.

Except there are scientists on every side that say mankind is involved, and others that say they don't. So, that's why we do turn to these organizations. The larger number of scientists who do say that we're helping global warming is far bigger then a few scientists who say it's not.

You can claim all you want that that one scientist could be correct. Well, he could be, but like I said before, who do you trust?

I trust all of the minds who say we're involved with this.

NO!!!

Using sheer numbers to prove "truth" is a fallacy of logic. Why can't you understand that?

Would you like for me to remind you of the NUMEROUS times in human history that the number of experts to agree on something scientific have been completely wrong??

Numbers who agree or disagree is absolutely irrelevant to the truth. It stands on it's own merits even if NO ONE agrees to it.

Sheer brainpower is what I'm going with.

Oh nice. You've moved from an Appeal to numbers fallacy to an Appeal to Authority one.

Is your brain wired to work on fallacies of logic????

And is your brain worked to the fact that this is some global conspiracy that mankind has set up?

Let's see where you're at now...

You've "progressed" from Appeal to Numbers fallacy to an Appeal to Authority one.

And currently you've moved on to a Straw Man argument.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Straw Man Argument Fallacy

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You do realize you are saying that on a topic that using an "argument from authority" correct?

The entire topic is based around some "physics professor's" view of global warming, and here you are trying to support the topic by blaming others for appealing to authority while the entire topic is based around an "argument from authority".

I think they call that hypocrisy.

reply to post by 0ne10


Re-read the discourse between the other poster and myself and your misunderstanding should disappear.

I'm saying to look at ALL the data, not a select bunch. (Cherry Picking)

I'm saying it doesn't matter how many people believe X to be true, X is true or false on it's own merits irregardless is 1% or 100% of scientists agree. (Appeal to Numbers)

I'm saying claiming X is true because a smart guy says X is true doesn't mean X is true. Again, X is true or false on it's own merits. (Appeal to Authority)

I'm saying the other member should not claim I support a position I myself have not proposed. They cannot shoot down a position they themselves have created. (Straw Man)

reply to post by NOTurTypical


To be honest, NUT, and don't take this personally, I doubt you're in a position to be able to assess 'ALL the data'. Well, at least this suggests you probably have difficulties assessing science to any decent level...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I'll admit i went to a public school, however I'm fairly certain cars do not emit CO2, but..

Carbon MONOXIDE.

Be careful with that "moron" paintbrush you like to use.

Perhaps you missed the combustion class in chemistry. Most amazing is that several people starred that post, lol.

The point made by one10 is pretty pertinent. This old crusty dude is being paraded around like some holy gourd. Who cares? He has little expertise in this area, and if people bothered to actually read and understand many of his ridiculous comments they'd see he's no great Galileo.

But it's not Mak Manto carrying this dude around like a Superbowl hero. The scientific consensus is pretty relevant and important. It shows that those with the most expertise and credibility accept the basic claims, and one crusty nuclear physicist throwing their dummy is barely worth more than a s'n-word' (lol, can't believe that was censored - 'chuckle', then).

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'll admit i went to a public school, however I'm fairly certain cars do not emit CO2, but..

Carbon MONOXIDE.

Be careful with that "moron" paintbrush you like to use.

Oh wow, no wonder you don't believe in climate change. You don't even realize that cars emit CO2. How could you not know cars emit CO2? I mean... really... If I were you, I would stop debating about climate change and CO2 for a while as you have lost all credibility with that post.

Do you know what catalytic converters are for? They turn carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide so we pollute the air with less deadly toxic waste. They are used on almost all vehicles with combustion engines. How can you not know this?

Every single car with a combustion engine, especially the cars sitting at a red light, or stop sign, or in traffic, is uselessly emitting CO2. Now sit on the side of a highway in California and you will see a never ending line of cars passing 24/7 all year round. If you could even grasp the amount of cars that are currently being operated right now as you read this, you will understand the vast amount of greenhouse gases that humans are emitting into this small world all day ever day, non stop. It is a HUGE problem.

I really can't see how you didn't already know this... that is amazing.

yeh i think we can pretty much say that global warming has been debunked man

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

It kind of is in this situation. Most people don't understand the full science behind global warming, so who do you turn to?

Scientists.

Except there are scientists on every side that say mankind is involved, and others that say they don't. So, that's why we do turn to these organizations. The larger number of scientists who do say that we're helping global warming is far bigger then a few scientists who say it's not.

You can claim all you want that that one scientist could be correct. Well, he could be, but like I said before, who do you trust?

I trust all of the minds who say we're involved with this.

NO!!!

Using sheer numbers to prove "truth" is a fallacy of logic. Why can't you understand that?

Would you like for me to remind you of the NUMEROUS times in human history that the number of experts to agree on something scientific have been completely wrong??

Numbers who agree or disagree is absolutely irrelevant to the truth. It stands on it's own merits even if NO ONE agrees to it.

Sheer brainpower is what I'm going with.

Oh nice. You've moved from an Appeal to numbers fallacy to an Appeal to Authority one.

Is your brain wired to work on fallacies of logic????

And is your brain worked to the fact that this is some global conspiracy that mankind has set up?

Let's see where you're at now...

You've "progressed" from Appeal to Numbers fallacy to an Appeal to Authority one.

And currently you've moved on to a Straw Man argument.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Straw Man Argument Fallacy

What's exaggerated or misrepresented about mankind causing global warming? The evidence is there that man has been causing global warming by burning fossil fuels and deforestation.

reply to post by 0ne10


I find it hard to have a serious discussion with you I am afraid.

you seem to want to disagree for the sake of it,

My position from the start of this whole global warming debate has not changed however, weather or not man is responsible it is up to everyone to change our wasteful ways.
a price on carbon will be far from our saviour but rather our enslaver as it will be the working man who pays.

Business and goverment will not lose out from any carbon tax, it is you me and our children who lose out.

So by all means argue all you want about what is heating or cooling the planet, but just ignore the elephant in the room called "CARBON TAX"

reply to post by munkey66

Originally posted by munkey66
So by all means argue all you want about what is heating or cooling the planet, but just ignore the elephant in the room called "CARBON TAX"

This is why I can't talk to you deniers... you just don't understand the argument.

I am not arguing about what is heating or cooling the planet. Actually, I don't even have to refer to temperature data to prove increasing CO2 can change the climate. You deniers all make the same mistake... you think people are watching the temperature data and making up excuses for it's changes. That is not how climate change was discovered. It was discovered by acknowledging the role that CO2 plays in our atmosphere. It plays a very important role. Knowing the role, and knowing that humans are increasing the CO2 levels every single day all day is the first step to understanding how it will change the atmosphere, and in the end, our climate. You don't even need to look at the temperature data. Just like I don't need a thermometer reading of my body temperature to prove that putting a jacket on in the winter will make me warm.

Yes, ignore the carbon tax when you are trying to debate about climate change, please. The carbon tax is a political debate, not a scientific debate. You can argue all you want about the carbon tax in another thread, but when you are debating about climate change it has no reason to even be mentioned.

Mentioning the carbon tax on a climate change debate is a cop out. It's a sorry excuse for an argument. It's like claiming all UFOs are fake just because there exists people out there who make money off of UFO hoaxes.

News flash... the effects of CO2 were predicted over 100 years ago before the carbon tax was even invented. The carbon tax did not give birth to climate change... climate change gave birth to the carbon tax.

Anyway, take your carbon tax debate to another topic, please.

reply to post by sc00by_d00


How do you debunk CO2's role in our atmosphere? You can't. It's already known and proven to be true.

Do you even know what role CO2 has in our atmosphere? If you think you do, please tell us.

How do you debunk that man is increasing CO2's role in our atmosphere? You can't... it's already been proven.

So what you said was just rubbish.