Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

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?

What now? Go do some research to find out how many of those so-called scientists are receiving grants from parties that have a vested interest in perpetuating the global warming myth (lie).

DuPont has made, and continues to make, BILLIONS from the global warming lie. Al Gore was worth, if I remember correctly, around $12M when he was vice president; now he is worth over $100M.

Those are just 3 examples of entities with a HUGE vested interest in perpetuating the lie.

The people you should be looking at are not the so-called scientists who have their hands out begging for more taxpayer dollars so they can have post-grad students do all their work, no, the scientists you need to look at are the ones who have come out against global warming and the absolute disgust that they have for their lying, lazy, moneygrubbing peer group.

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?

Did you actually read the whole section that you were quoting from? I did. Here is the complete text from that section-

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:


(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.[107]

The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[108] Anderegg et al. replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study’s framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[109] The Anderegg et al. study was also criticized by Roger A. Pielke,[110] Pat Michaels, Roger Pielke, Jr., and John Christy.[111] Pielke Jr. commented that "this paper simply reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science in policy debate." [111]

I'll requote this, because it's a great line "this paper simply reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science in policy debate." Nice.

Originally posted by DragonTattooz
What now? Go do some research to find out how many of those so-called scientists are receiving grants from parties that have a vested interest in perpetuating the global warming myth (lie).

DuPont has made, and continues to make, BILLIONS from the global warming lie. Al Gore was worth, if I remember correctly, around $12M when he was vice president; now he is worth over $100M.

Those are just 3 examples of entities with a HUGE vested interest in perpetuating the lie.

I'm not stating this as a fact, but I can think of entities with very deep pockets and probably top-notch scientists employed who would have huge interest in the opposite, handing out grants to scientists so they step out the global warming camp. I can't imagine oil companies and other big polluters playing the game one bit fairer as any entity profiting from the global warming hype.

So I think it goes two ways. I wonder which side has the most cash to burn and the biggest interest in steering this discussion.

Originally posted by chrismir

Originally posted by DragonTattooz
What now? Go do some research to find out how many of those so-called scientists are receiving grants from parties that have a vested interest in perpetuating the global warming myth (lie).

DuPont has made, and continues to make, BILLIONS from the global warming lie. Al Gore was worth, if I remember correctly, around $12M when he was vice president; now he is worth over $100M.

Those are just 3 examples of entities with a HUGE vested interest in perpetuating the lie.

I'm not stating this as a fact, but I can think of entities with very deep pockets and probably top-notch scientists employed who would have huge interest in the opposite, handing out grants to scientists so they step out the global warming camp. I can't imagine oil companies and other big polluters playing the game one bit fairer as any entity profiting from the global warming hype.

So I think it goes two ways. I wonder which side has the most cash to burn and the biggest interest in steering this discussion.

Good point. Sorry, I just don't have anything to add for a second line...............oh, wait, i think i see it........................there it is.

Don't be so naive as to think that big oil has not hedged the bets heavily.

Just for the record.

Big Oil is a conglomerate of investors. Investors want money.

These investors are the largest funders (and patent holders) of 'green' technology (wind/solar/geothermal/etc.).

Climate change becomes big...they make money.

Climate chnage vanishes...they make money.

Either way...they make money.

Originally posted by burntheships
I wonder...how many more outstanding scientists will it take to speak out in truth
to overcome the crooked politicians and religious fanatics that comprise the movement of
The Manmade Global Warming Crowd?

With billions to be made from Carbon Credits almost overnight and the massive research funding realized by those willing to sell out, I doubt they will be honest anytime soon. Likely it will simply drift into the same void the bizarre climate debate did in the 1970's when we were told that the Earth would be without any remaining forests and most plant life would be gone within 30 years.

Follow the money to find truth.

Follow the money.

The climate change crowd realized there was money to be made in this scheme. Carbon credits, taxes, and all the regulatory fees and other nonsense that comes with it.

The earth heats up, the earth cools down. Some times it is wetter in some places, some times it is drier, El nino and el nina. And Al Gore telling me the world is going to end in ten years, when the best scientists can do is get tree ring samples from a 2000 year old tree, or an ice core sample from a 10000 year old glacier, on a 4 BILLION year old planet?

Nonsense.

We don't know a lot about the planet we are living on. The explosion of Krakatoa put more sulphur and other pollutants into the air than all of mankind could ever do.

But keep on drinking the kool aid.

it seems to me more like he resigned over semantics and verbage. I bet he is a drama queen. I also bet he does not own ocean front property

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Clearly, since the industrial age has begun we can see that there has been a sharp increase in global temperature. That is, if the National Environmental Satellite, data, and Information service is to be believed.

Except this is highly dependent upon the methods.

You cannot take 50 temperature measurements from Missouri in today's time and compare it to 4 temperature measurements made from 1900. The temperature in town is easily 5-10 degrees higher than what it is outside of town. Hell, there is a serious lack of standards regarding the way in which temperature is to be measured (what times, placement - over concrete or grass, etc). There's no reliable method to merge the two data sets.

You are looking at "steep changes" in average temperature by less than a degree. Well within the margin of error for the data sets and sampling/averaging methods used.

It's simply irresponsible to draw conclusions off of the methods used to support APG - as the data is incapable of supporting any conclusion.

Anyway - on to a more pertinent issue.

The claim I always find to be funny is the claim that "big oil" is somehow paying to suppress the "imminent dangers" from Global Warming.... yet... they are about to run out of oil, if you ask these same people.

From a logical standpoint, it makes no sense: "Big oil pays money to endorse wasteful and irresponsible use of a resource they provide and are about to run out of." Pretty silly argument to make when you think about it. By encouraging more efficient use of their resource, they can prolong the life of a profitable resource while investing in alternative technologies (that is already taking place).

All this posturing on global warming is not doing a dang thing. The data that is being used gets put into a tit for tat argument. These pro-global warming types show nothing but hypocrisy in their actions. How many "environmental friendly" vehicles were used in Coppenhagan? That carbon foot print could have been seen in space! Some of us who disbelieve the official line on climate change have issue with the methods and actions of those criticizing us. I see trees getting destroyed for yet another strip mall and wonder why is this needed. A balance is needed between our need for resources and keeping areas prisitine. Need to drill for oil somewhere? Then another area needs to be cultivated for its natural state. All we really get out of this is money grabbing by those who found it easy to get people to tow the line out of emotional response. A sucker is born every minute! And come on now most of the so called eco friendly products are not as friendly as people think. You know what goes into a battery for a hybrid car? Do you know what it does to the environment? Or is it ok when it happens somewhere not in your backyard!

reply to post by Aim64C


check out prof mullers project out at berkeley. it's important to know beforehand that he was a ACC skeptic and gore basher hired by the republicans to testify in front of congress that the testing stations were unreliable, and cherry picked. I think you will find his testimony interesting

Originally posted by burntheships

The First Global Revolution
which is " A Report by The Club Of Rome" in which the quote is found...

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

page 84 of the PDF, page 75 of the actual document.
ia700408.us.archive.org...

It's because they want a world government --- one they control --- and not one that would be beneficial for mankind as a whole. What better way to start placing control over humanity than to control their energy sources? Vouchers for fuel? Black market trading? It's only part of their plan.

reply to post by IamCorrect


the club of rome ? I tried to verify the authors and could not. can you tell me if those two were club members ? txs in advance

reply to post by DragonTattooz

What now? Go do some research to find out how many of those so-called scientists are receiving grants from parties that have a vested interest in perpetuating the global warming myth (lie).

That's ridiculous. I have already proven that they are willing to call out each other when infactaul information is published.

DuPont has made, and continues to make, BILLIONS from the global warming lie. Al Gore was worth, if I remember correctly, around $12M when he was vice president; now he is worth over $100M.

Irrelevant, all scientist do not work for Al' Gore

reply to post by DragonTattooz

Did you actually read the whole section that you were quoting from? I did. Here is the complete text from that section-

Yes i did.

I'll requote this, because it's a great line "this paper simply reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science in policy debate." Nice

Science does not deal in politics. It is there for you and me, not politicians.

reply to post by peck420

Don't be so naive as to think that big oil has not hedged the bets heavily.
Just for the record. Big Oil is a conglomerate of investors.
Investors want money.
These investors are the largest funders (and patent holders) of 'green' technology (wind/solar/geothermal/etc.).
Climate change becomes big...they make money. Climate chnage vanishes...they make money.
Either way...they make money.

All of this is irrelevant to the validity of GW

reply to post by Blaine91555

With billions to be made from Carbon Credits almost overnight and the massive research funding realized by those willing to sell out, I doubt they will be honest anytime soon. Likely it will simply drift into the same void the bizarre climate debate did in the 1970's when we were told that the Earth would be without any remaining forests and most plant life would be gone within 30 years. Follow the money to find truth.

Scientist did not become scientist for money, they are interested in the truth. So this is patently false. Also Irrelevant to the validity of GW.

reply to post by Darkrunner

We don't know a lot about the planet we are living on. The explosion of Krakatoa put more sulphur and other pollutants into the air than all of mankind could ever do.

Already explained. Do not ignore it.

reply to post by syrinx high priest


scottthong.wordpress.com...

take a look at some of those pictures regarding where those temperature stations are located. There's no control, whatsoever.

"Here's that new temperature sampling station. Where should we put it?"

"Those things are hard to read in the shade.... let's put it in the sun, right next to where we have our lunch-time barbeques - we'll kill two birds with one stone!"

Then how about close-up of the same box, showing a non-fluorescent light bulb located inside the temperature reading station shelter itself? After all, everyone knows that light bulbs switched on for hours do NOT get hot enough to burn your hand.

www.surfacestations.org...

There's some more fun ones. Let's place the temperature station right behind where we park the jet aircraft.

I don't need another political testimony to see what is plain-as-day in the data from these stations (all of which show temperature increases following the installation of heat exchangers right next to them, laying of asphalt, etc) - or to see what is in the pictures of these stations that indicates their reporting temperatures cannot be relied upon.

reply to post by Aim64C

Except this is highly dependent upon the methods. You cannot take 50 temperature measurements from Missouri in today's time and compare it to 4 temperature measurements made from 1900. The temperature in town is easily 5-10 degrees higher than what it is outside of town. Hell, there is a serious lack of standards regarding the way in which temperature is to be measured (what times, placement - over concrete or grass, etc). There's no reliable method to merge the two data sets.

Prove their methods are wrong. I dont accept random claims that they are. They are smarter and more learned than you, deal with it.

You are looking at "steep changes" in average temperature by less than a degree. Well within the margin of error for the data sets and sampling/averaging methods used.

Asserting this does not mean it is true. Back up you assertions.

The claim I always find to be funny is the claim that "big oil" is somehow paying to suppress the "imminent dangers" from Global Warming.... yet... they are about to run out of oil, if you ask these same people.

Ok? Well this is irrelevant. Not a valid argument for or against GW.