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

Of course if global warming wasn't real it still cant be too good to send those emisions into the air.

reply to post by Camtheconspiracyman


We should stop all the oxygen too. It rusts metals and causes many problem so it can't be good that oxygen is emitted. Let's start cutting trees down lest oxygen destroys us all.

reply to post by 547000


I was just saying that even if global warming wasn't real there might be another thing that CO2 does to the atmosphere that we don't know about. A more gradual cause.

reply to post by bronwyn82


What does a physics professor know about global warming?

Does this make him a meteorologist?

reply to post by Kandinsky


yeah right, "if you dont pray for me and dont work for me, the world is going to end"

thats how sociopaths did explore people in the past

I dont care whats your opinion, but everyone should have the right to discuss fairly about everything

asking questions shouldnt be a crime, but, nowadays, as in the past, its considered a crime ...

I had weighed in on this, on another thread, before I found this one, so let me express my thoughts on this thread, which had many more posts than the other one.
I can tell you from first hand experience that a great deal of grant money does NOT go to actually RESEARCH with an unbiased methodology and come to an unbiased conclusion. Most, not all, but MOST grants are given by corporations, groups, and organizations who want the research institution to "validate" their bias, any way that they can. Thus, tobacco companies pay for research which concludes that smoking does not cause cancer, pharmaceutical companies do the same to validate that the drugs they are pushing do no harm, and politicians enlist polling firms that validate their "lead" in the polls.
People can be naive and believe that all research is perfectly on the up-and-up, but I have seen, first hand, too many grants awarded for "findings" that were already predetermined.
In addition, the AGW "proponents DO have billions at stake, and have done a good job blurring the lines between pollution, which is a valid concern, with AGW. I do not wish to debate AGW here, as that has been done thousands of times here, but the Hal does indeed point out the TRUTH behind much of the fraud that has been perpetrated upon the public.One does not need to be a climate researcher to expose the rampant fraud prevalent in research today. In addition, he certainly has more inside information about how the grant process works, than does Al Gore, who seems to be accepted by the AGW proponents at his word. Too bad his life-style betrays his real beliefs concerning the alleged "DANGER" of GW.
There are many academics who know how fraudulent the process is, but continue the fraud, because that is where their bread is buttered. Believe what you wish, but I KNOW that such fraud is rampant.

so wait a minute.. am I reading this right? This guy is saying the Global Warming is a scam? So in other words, all the pollution doesn't really effect anything? Um... ok, so uh what exactly is the Kyoto Treaty then??? Is it all part of a Global Conspiracy then?!?

Let's take a look shall we...
Discord blocks climate deal 10.11.10

Progress in climate-treaty negotiations has been blocked because the United States has pushed to abandon the Kyoto Protocol while placing blame on developing countries.

Discord blocks climate deal
They say tension is rising as the US, which never ratified the Kyoto agreement, presses hard to change the nature of commitments made by developed and developing countries, with the Cancun climate summit only a month away.

China's chief climate negotiator, Su Wei, said attempts to thoroughly revamp the Kyoto Protocol have blocked any possible progress in the talks.

"During the past six days, some developed countries have kept silent on their mitigation plans after 2012, when the first commitment period of Kyoto Protocol expires," Su said....

Climate change talks (China Daily) Updated: 2010-10-11 08:00

The just concluded United Nations climate meeting in Tianjin laid some cornerstones for the creation of a global climate fund at the upcoming climate change negotiations in Cancun, Mexico.

Securing climate financing and technology transfer is a must to assist the millions of vulnerable, poverty-stricken people in poor countries. We all witnessed how homes were washed away and millions of people were displaced by the floods in Pakistan in July and August.

Millions more in the developing countries struggle for a decent life. In the words of Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), giving thousands of villages "efficient solar cookers and lights" will provide people with "the opportunity to take control of their future stability, security and sustainability".

It is encouraging to see emerging economies, including China, providing help to poorer countries under the framework of South-South cooperation.

However, there is danger that some rich countries may treat the new climate fund as a bargaining chip. A number of developed countries led by the United States have set preconditions that require developing countries to have their emission reduction projects measured, reported and verified according to their prescribed routine.

At the same time, these rich nations have been dragging their feet in coming up with new targets to cut their own emissions. According to researchers, the national pledges made by developed countries under the Copenhagen Accord cannot achieve their share of the 25-40 percent of CO2 emission reductions from the level of 1990 required to slow down global warming.

Some nations even want to free themselves from the legally binding Kyoto Protocol, of which most developed countries, except the US, are signatories.

The much publicized debate between China and the United States is not simple "bickering".

China and all developing countries must hold onto the principles agreed upon by the 194 countries under the UNFCCC and stop rich countries from backtracking on their previous promises.

China must also go all-out to commit itself to tough targets to reduce its emissions, and make the results transparent for the good of China as well as the world.

Above all, developing countries cannot allow the rich countries to limit the space and scope of the developing countries' future economic growth and shirk their historical and present responsibilities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping mitigate the impact of climate change.

A successful Cancun climate change conference does not allow for compromises in principles.

(China Daily 10/11/2010 page8)

I dunno if it's pollution or what, but something definitely smells funny...


By the way I just realized there are a total of 2465 documents found in 0-10 pages over at China Daily.com.cn when doing a search for "Kyoto" ...

reply to post by sum1one


The problem is that the global warming theory says that MEN are causing the world to become warmer

but history says its part of a cycle and we have no big influence on it and we have no evidence that we are getting warmer (since 95 I think)

thats the discussion

another discussion is that, maybe, we are not becoming warmer, but colder ...

You can relate to pollution, but thats a different deal: I agree we should stop killing the rest of the nature, but I dont agree with the fact that these people are imposing an idea without giving anyone the chance to discuss it

Originally posted by Faiol
reply to post by sum1one

 

The problem is that the global warming theory says that MEN are causing the world to become warmer

but history says its part of a cycle and we have no big influence on it and we have no evidence that we are getting warmer (since 95 I think)

thats the discussion

another discussion is that, maybe, we are not becoming warmer, but colder ...

You can relate to pollution, but thats a different deal: I agree we should stop killing the rest of the nature, but I dont agree with the fact that these people are imposing an idea without giving anyone the chance to discuss it

I think it's actually a LOT more complicated than that - first of all, what "history" says its "part of a cycle and we have no big influence on it" -- you're not referring to the Mayan Calendar are you? Cuz.. it's kinda funny, the only "history" I've ever came across saying anything about it being part of a "cycle" RATHER than it being based on pollution is... the Mayan Calendar.. oddly enough.

I'm not even going to bother with the "it's not getting warmer, it's getting colder" discussion because that entire idea as far as I'm concerned is a joke.

You can relate to pollution, but thats a different deal: I agree we should stop killing the rest of the nature, but I dont agree with the fact that these people are imposing an idea without giving anyone the chance to discuss it

How exactly is anyone "imposing an idea without giving anyone the chance to discuss it?"

From what I can see there's already been annual meetings for the last 15 YEARS covering the following areas of the world:

• Berlin, Germany
  
• Geneva, Switzerland
  
• Kyoto, Japan
  
• Buenos Aires, Argentina
  
• Bonn, Germany
  
• The Hauge, Netherlands
  
• Marrakech, Morocco
  
• New Delhi, India
  
• Milan, Italy
  
• Montreal, Canada
  
• Nairobi, Kenya
  
• Bali, Indonesia
  
• Poznań, Poland
  
• Copenhagen, Denmark
  

Originally posted by sum1one
so wait a minute.. am I reading this right? This guy is saying the Global Warming is a scam?

Hal Lewis is the same guy who said:

The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth)

www.cbsnews.com...

There's reason for the term 'gone emeritus'. His opinion is of little weight, beyond the normal denier's sturm und drang.

I think it's actually a LOT more complicated than that - first of all, what "history" says its "part of a cycle and we have no big influence on it" -- you're not referring to the Mayan Calendar are you? Cuz.. it's kinda funny, the only "history" I've ever came across saying anything about it being part of a "cycle" RATHER than it being based on pollution is... the Mayan Calendar.. oddly enough.

I'm not even going to bother with the "it's not getting warmer, it's getting colder" discussion because that entire idea as far as I'm concerned is a joke.

I didn't think the Myan calander mentioned anything about previous ice ages.

I think the term about being a cycle more refers to the earth warming and cooling, having ice ages and temperate periods.
my curiosity has now been stirred by the Myan calander link, could yoy please explain it further?