It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

page: 3
43
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 

actually, folks may find this much more informative ... also old science
or perhaps this ... CIA pdf from 1974

whatever you choose to believe, here are more current facts ...

The gases in the atmosphere (in order) by percent are:

Nitrogen 78.1%
Oxygen 20.9%
Argon 0.9%
Carbon Dioxide 0.03852% (publ. 23 Nov. 2009, globally averaged during 2008)
Neon 0.002%
Helium 0.0005%
Methane 0.0001786% (NCAR: end of 2008)
Krypton 0.0001%
Hydrogen 0.00005%
Water vapor 0 to 4%
Ozone 0.000004%

(Source: Florida State University (2010), except Methane: NCAR and CO2)




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 

go away troll, you've been reported.
'nuff said.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 

go away troll, you've been reported.
'nuff said.


Huh? I am ignoring you from now on.Please do not address me anymore.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Both the "global warming" climatologists and the "climate change" ones have been bought and paid for, the former by groups that want to regulate business into the ground, and the latter by groups that have in turn been bought by unscrupulous businesses that want to keep the status quo. The facts about global weather are simple, however:

Nobody knows jack. We have only had official temperature records for ~150 years. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. NOBODY can say with absolute certainty if the Earth is warmer or cooler than it has ever been, with the few exceptions of certain writings by individuals over the past 300 years or so, which still could be within weather cycles lasting centuries.

Making a case because "it's warmer than it has ever been", when we're comparing to data that's 150 years old is bad science. Even over the past few decades trends within trends have been found in our weather. Nobody can say absolutely that our warmer weather is solely caused by man, because there is no way to quantify that with normal weather trends that my last for centuries, or millennia, if not longer.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


So what is your point? Should we just go ahead full speed ahead onto the rickety bridge because no one has proved positively that it is rickety?

... or should we proceed with caution and be prepared for the worst, just in case? As far as the world's atmosphere goes, our health is pretty dependent on its health, and not polluting it would be a good thing, whether or not the extra CO2 is proven to be a problem or not.

I really don't understand the motives of people who try and defend avoidance of changing things for the better with spurious arguments that accomplish nothing useful; at least for Joe Citizen. Continuing with unbridled fossil fuel use helps only those that produce it and profit from it. Being their patsy seems to be the only game here.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I don't understand why you wont believe scientist when they say global warming is true. But instantly accept it as truth when one says it might not be.

Sounds like a strange double standard to me...


Simple. Those that go along with the global warming myth stand to gain in their careers. While those that speak out against it risk their careers. What takes more courage?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by applebaum
I am glad to know that there are those who will take a stand for truth. Yes he is noble in my book. I wish more scientists and world leaders would fight so strongly to let us all know the truth of our situation.



Noble?
A climatologist who has been badgered and harassed out of a job and a science by maniacal right wingers threatening to cut off your research funding. He is no doubt sick of lying for 3 years and has a conscience unlike many of the others who will deny climate change as long as their research gets funded.

To think that half the planet is only interested in making Al Gore a few bucks is ludicrous.
The popular position is the one telling you you're perfect and it always will be - Kind of a no brainer.
It is the truth that is hard to sell.

Only somebody like Sarah Palin would call quitting "taking a stand for the truth."

With so many people trashing evolution and climate change these guys are probably just going to wait until science makes a comeback.
edit on 15-9-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Some of those links didn't work and most led to a site that is specifically set up to deny climate change, another report is from the venerable Senate Minority...what might they know about climate change? They are politicians and not scientists after all. Maybe you should check out this video. It will help explain what is going on so you can take a step and do something proactive. Dooming the planet for life and future generations by spreading what may very well be FALSE INFORMATION - (since it is information bought and sold to Americans by the OIL INDUSTRY and just might be biased)....is NOT what I consider pro-active. That is just very irresponsibly setting us up to fail.

This is like saying you needed bother with that tetanus shot. I know you stepped on a rusty nail but lets just wait and see what happens. It is not sound logic and it is dangerous.


edit on 15-9-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I don't understand why you wont believe scientist when they say global warming is true. But instantly accept it as truth when one says it might not be.

Sounds like a strange double standard to me...


Simple. Those that go along with the global warming myth stand to gain in their careers. While those that speak out against it risk their careers. What takes more courage?



So you think the entire body of science has been lying for the past 20 years?

Now the GOP has just discovered this and is only now setting us straight?

Maybe Al Gore has been planning this since he was in kindergarten?

Well it's all just good news for the oil industry and bottom line that's all that matters to those who would play fast and lose with the worlds resources. Yeah Exxon is my hero too. I can't wait til they come out with an action figure. "Driller" with his little rig. Yeah that will be cool.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by WhoDat09
 





all science is basically just a bunch of guesses anyway


Oh dear god.


To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.




en.wikipedia.org...


Science start's with a "guess" and then gathers evidence and tests this "guess" until it can be worked into something repeatable and proven. Science is not, in any way, a bunch of "guesses". What the hell are they teaching you kids in school?

Anyways, it's not lost on me at all that you guys keep changing the goal posts.

"global warming is a fraud!" you shout. but it's not, actually, it's a freaking natural cycle. What the "fraud" is, is the grossly overestimated impact humans are having. All Al Gore has done to "fix" this, is find a way to profit from it.

If you honestly think humans have no impact on the planet, well, I really don't know what to say, batcrap crazy comes to mind. Ozone mean anything to do? how about the giant ocean dead zones?

Are humans contributing? It's insane to suggest we aren't. Are we the sole problem? It's insane to suggest we are.

the fact remains that our impact is the ONLY VARIABLE WE CAN CONTROL.

The problem is, this hogwash is being used to basically give the oil industry free run to pollute the crap out of the planet, and continue to drain a limited resource without actually trying to find an alternative that is sustainable.

And right about now, some batcrap crazy dude will post up a theory about abiotic oil and how "limited" oil is a fraud and it doesn't get created from biodegradability of plant and biological material, it's made from magic and empty wells refill all the time, oil oil everywhere lets all have a drink.

So no, a Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist didn't Resign Over Global Warming, he resigned over the overhyped man made aspect of it. these silly bait and switch games aren't going to work here.
edit on 15-9-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 





Simple. Those that go along with the global warming myth stand to gain in their careers. While those that speak out against it risk their careers. What takes more courage?


Aaaaand this is the disconnect. You simply do not understand how the scientific method works. If a scientist had proof that was backed up by research that global warming was false, he would be a celebrity. Published works are under close scrutiny by other scientist. Looking for any reason to prove it wrong.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming


www.foxnews.com

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
1000 Scientists Speak Out Against IPCC & Al Gore
Climate Depot

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:

The Powerful Coalition That Wants To Engineer The World's Climate

The Holy Land: The Ecological Turning Point Of The Three Religions

Geoengineering Trials Get Under Way

The Climate Cash Cow
edit on 15-9-2011 by burntheships because: format, spelling, links


The guy was 82 years old and he had to retire sometime. He worked for GE. Do you think GE, the energy company might have a one sided interest in this topic? Like anything, consider the source. And also he never provided evidence to suggest climate change wasn't happening and wasn't man made. He said he was a SKEPTIC. If he had anything more definitive than his personal opinion (which may be bought and paid for) I think he would have brought it out. To me this is proof in the other direction. Even this senile old coot can't stand there and say man isn't causing global warming as much as he wants to. He says he is SKEPTICAL.

Well isn't that brave. And retiring at 82.... WOW, very brave indeed. He may not find another job in the industry after this bold claim he appears to be making. (at least from the "climate change is a hoax" website you provided) I guess he is willing to take that chance.



Views on global warming According to The Wall Street Journal, Giaever has described man-made global warming as a "new religion,"[8] with references to a report released by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (minority), led by Jim Inhofe, in March 2009.[9] The report states that Giaever has said "I am a skeptic… Global warming has become a new religion."[9][10] In a featured story in Norway's largest newspaper, Aftenposten, 26 June 2011, Giaever stated, "It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years."[11]



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
All you need to know is Co2 is heavier than air and can't cause global warming....He probably remembered..



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I've read a couple of reports showing falsifications of data and just straight up mistakes in the reporting of data which all end up being in favor of global warming. Just as an example the false report from 2008 about Oct. of that year being the hottest Oct. on record, when the data used to make that claim actually came from temperature numbers for the month of Sept.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontlaughthink
All you need to know is Co2 is heavier than air and can't cause global warming....He probably remembered..


While that is factually correct, it doesn't pan out in your advantage. Co2 is only a little bit heavier than air. Heat and wind push it up in to atmosphere, all the while mixing with the 'air'. Really think about this too, if that had panned out like you thought it would, wouldn't we all be living in vision blocking clouds of smog?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by babuthegreat
 


Can you get me a link please?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I don't understand why you wont believe scientist when they say global warming is true. But instantly accept it as truth when one says it might not be.

Sounds like a strange double standard to me...

edit on 15-9-2011 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)

Maybe because the OP actually did his research?? If you read only mainstream media and dont do some research yourself you wont ever learn the truth. The fact is that climate science has become entirely about politics.
In science you should have debate and actually show all views. There are thousands of scientists who disagree with the so called IPCC consensus.
Real data show absolutely no support for the theory and instead a lot of the data contradicts it.

Warming and cooling periods have happened over and over again over the last thousands of years and modern warming is far from how warm it has been before.
The only reason we have "global warming" is because they look only at short term temps even though warming and cooling cycles can last longer than a few decades or even centuries. It is only natural that it gets warmer again after you have had a long period of cooling like the LIA and the more recent global cooling in 70-80s.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999
...Big oil financed shill essentially...

No suprises then.



The millions oil invests in science obviously is more effective than the BILLIONS that governments spend on their shills...



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by burntheships
 





I must say I give credence to 1000 and counting scientists who speak out with supporting evidence. More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading “Consensus”



(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[106]


en.wikipedia.org...

So, what now?

Nice going.. using wikipedia as a source instead of actually checking the actual scientific papers.
And of course there are more people who publish for pro AGW side when they only hand out funding to those who want to prove that global warming is real. The funny part is that they dont even accept the science if they happen to come to a different conclusion than proving global warming.

So can you explain why it was warmer earlier in holocene? If you even know what that word is...
Also maybe some of the warming has to do with the sun having been more active than in 8000+ years over the last decades? Even though the sun has been so unusually active we are nowhere near the peak temps of holocene and probably even not up to medieval warm period.

And also funny how you even defend Mann's tree ring data, even though they have admitted that they cut off the last decades and spliced it with giss/thermometer based data since the tree rings showed cooling instead of warming.
Doing this is both unethical and completely butchers the data. If it dosent show the "right" temperature now then why would it do so in the past? There people are making up the rules as they go.
The only place where global warming exist is in their flawed computer models that is not capable of simulating the climate system.
edit on 15-9-2011 by juleol because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


He probably resigned cause he didn't get no grant money.......I always knew this was b.s....



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join