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

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by bronwyn82

 

A quote from your source:

Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.

But it seems there are plenty of scientists who did and do so without said revulsion:

www.cbsnews.com...

www.factcheck.org...

reason.com...

Or just google it. Up to this day there were five independent reviews of Climategate and all of them have exhonerated any and all scientists although they condemned the negative PR that they brought on the whole subject.

So basically the guy is just stating his opinion: In his mind there's no way a scientist can believe in Climate Change. The thing is, though, that most do - and nobody has yet found any substantial wrong doing among the scientists even if he claims he has. He'd better present the evidence than to merely make such a blanket assertion that is diametrically opposed to what all other independent reviews of the case have come to conclude.

edit on 10-10-2010 by NichirasuKenshin because: grammar, structure, typos

edit on 10-10-2010 by NichirasuKenshin because: grammar, structure, typos

I don't know about 5 independant reviews... I tried using Google like you suggested, and nothing credible came up. None of your sources have themselves read the CRU emails, including factchecker and reason. What I do see is alot of commenting on the findings of "The Independent Climate Change Email Review panel's report [pdf] is now out." Which, by the way, was set up and funded by the same university that was under scrutiny... i mean seriously, let's ask the criminal if he is guilty or innocent, and then just take his word for it yes?

And if you had even the faintest idea what trust means for the scientific method and global cooperation, you would realize the real problem. "Climategate showed clear evidence of collusion to subvert the scientific process for political ends and to evade legal requirements under Freedom of Information laws." findarticles.com...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by SeventhSeal

 

However, the truth is that we don't know if we're causing Global Warming or not.

ABSOLUTELY false!!! The only thing we know for SURE is it appears to be getting warmer. The other things we know for sure are:

1. The surface temperatures of other planets in our Solar System are warming as well.

2. The other planets do not have humans on them.


The logical response is the Sun is burning hotter! Al gore and others would have a strong case if the other planets in our Solar System were NOT also gradually warming.

Wake up folks, you're being hoodwinked.

No, we don't know for sure if we're causing it or not. That's still up for debate, like it or not.

reply to post by munkey66


Wasn't the argument that pollution isn't playing any kind of important role towards Global Warming, that we're simply going thru a cycle - a phase - in which the climate of the planet is going to change anyway? That's where your getting your ideas about an Ice Age from correct?

If the Earth is "just going thru another phase of the cycle" then what "history" exists to show us? How long will this "phase" last? I was simply saying that I haven't seen any mention of the Earth going thru a cycle or phase of any kind anywhere in history, other than in what the Mayan Calendar describes thru it's calculations based on (supposably) different positions of Venus in the night sky.

The last glacial period is sometimes colloquially referred to as the "last ice age", though this use is incorrect because an ice age is a longer period of cold temperature in which ice sheets cover large parts of the Earth, such as Antarctica. Glacials, on the other hand, refer to colder phases within an ice age that separate interglacials. Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by sum1one


No, I am getting my information about an ice age from history
as humans go, we think we are so clever and arrogant that we can say with certainty that we are the cause of this climate changing, in reality, the climate is always changing and the fact that there have been more than 1 ice age sort of gives me the impression of cycles, just as we have 4 seasons which cycle we also have 7 year cycles and 700 year cycles etc........

But those cycles just like our seasons are prone to alterations like sunny days in the middle of winter and a miserable cool day in the middle of summer, there are no strict rules as weather changes as does climates.

Now having a planet some 4 billion years old there is no absolute proof that we know for sure if what we are in now is just a warm day in the middle of winter on the 4 billion year scale.

Originally posted by Kandinsky

If there's a rational argument for *not* reducing carbon emissions or protecting the environment can somebody post a basic outline?

I'm pretty sure someone with your brain could think of a few reasons?


Unless you've bought into that carbon-cult nonsense.

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


Add to the list of detractors:

Another Domino Falls: UK's Leading Scientific Body Retreats on Climate Change

21stcenturywir e.com

The Royal Society has released a new guide which outlines a retreat from its former vanguard stance on the threat of climate change and man-made global warming. The decision to update their scientific guide came after 43 of its members complained that the previous versions failed to take into account the opinion of climate change sceptics.

The new guide, entitled ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’, concedes that there are now major ‘uncertainties’ regarding the once sacred ‘scientific consensus’ behind man-made global warming theory, admitting that not only is it impossi

To the OP S&F

reply to post by bronwyn82

It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.

Sums it all up for me.

I have read the 'climategate documents'. And therefore I seriously question whether this guy has Because they do nothing of the sort - and indeed have no bearing on the science whatsoever.

All they show is that some people get p*ssed off with pointless vexatious FOIA requests and think scienctific papers ought be well written and properly researched before they get published.

Like it or not, we dug up a lot of hydrocarbons and oxidized them. Whether or not this has severely affected climate is beyond my scope of expertise. What I will mention however is that over 55km^3 (kilometers cubed, not cubic kilometers) of carbon (assuming a density of graphite; ~2g/cubic cm) has been released from sequestration. This in turn, we think, is acidifying the oceans. If the oceans go, we, and most macroscopic life are done.

While asking folks (or demanding, as would seem to be the case) to change their lifestyle/pay taxes to reverse a hundred+ years of garbo public policy is a bit out of the realm of reason, it does make sense to make the switch to solar ASAP. Almost every bond broken during combustion was originally created by energy derived from sunlight. It is beyond my comprehension that we can pay 2,400,000,000 dollars for a single bomber (and crash it), and yet we cannot properly fund research which will help sustain our species well into the future. This of course goes without mentioning the complete devastation of the many ecosystems directly impacted by the mining and refining of hydrocarbons.

Ultimately, I would suggest that instead of wasting our time shouting about climate change (in either direction), we demand both public works projects and private enterprise endeavors to properly solve the energy problem in a timely fashion.

Originally posted by KringleFantastico

Ultimately, I would suggest that instead of wasting our time shouting about climate change (in either direction), we demand both public works projects and private enterprise endeavors to properly solve the energy problem in a timely fashion.

You would demand my money to fund and build the Carbon Cult's inefficient power-generation equipment?

How nice of you. You are so beneficent with the wealth of others.

All the back and forth on this subject is just giving me headaches. I will believe in AGW when the Al Gore's of the world get rid of their private jets and down size their personal carbon footprints. So far their personal behavior suggests that they don't believe it either.
I wonder how many years of my electricity use equals up to one of Al Gore's? (I run a computer about 12 hours a day and a couple of light bulbs about 2) and I take elevator once in a while to the 4th floor. Oh yeah I have a fridge - one of those energy star things and an old washing machine (no dryer).
How much carbon is created by all the flying around the country Obama does these days?

It sure does not look to me like the global leaders believe, why should I?

Mars is heating up.

Jupiter is heating up

Venus is heating up.

Out solar system is heating up, we are not experiencing warming on a global scale, we are experiencing warming on a solar scale. This doesn't mean however, that man made actions do nothing to cause damage, carbon emissions are hazardous and do have a big impact on the climate. Look at Beijing since the 1960's 'till now as a case study for case and point. Global warming is not man-made, it is perhaps only slightly supporting the heating that is happening naturally within our solar system already.

I think those that say global warming is a total hoax really haven't looked at the data.

reply to post by serbsta


I don't think many of us are claiming its a hoax, just the man made part of it. People keep mixing this up. Pollution is bad, climate change is real. No argument. The argument is about man made co2 being the root of the problem.

reply to post by munkey66



We've had more than 1 ice age? I only ever heard about one.. oh, and then there's "the planet is 4 billion years old thing" Nobody knows how old the planet is, they all just guess and base everything on radiocarbon dating which pretty much relies on calibration.. and is still being "improved". Then there's the "rumor" (I'm just going to say its a rumor because I'm not an actual scientist and I'm too tired to look everything up at the moment) that Carbon 14 has a half-life of 5730 years, and is almost completely gone after 60,000 years.

en.wikipedia.org...

I certainly don't trust the Republicans on this issue--or any other--since they are so tied to big oil and other corporate interests. They have never been anything else except the party of big business, which means they have their own ideological agenda, which is definitely not sympathetic to any type of environmental regulation, conservation, alternative fuels, protection of labor rights, etc, etc.

It's amazing to see that the Republican Party today is far more conservative and Know Nothing than it was in the days of Teddy Roosevelt 100 years ago or more, but it's a fact.

That's why I take anything they say on this issue with a big grain of salt and suspect they always have ulterior motives.

Originally posted by neo96
i say its mans own arrogance that he can effect things on a planetary scale

And I say it's man's own arrogance that he can do as he pleases without having to consider the possible consequences.

reply to post by doomsauce


I'm pretty sure that cause and effect has been common knowledge for some time now.

It is neat that you tried to use his words in a snappy comeback. But it doesn't work when its 'success' requires people to pretend that mankind don't consider the consequences for their actions.

Don't get mad tho.

reply to post by xxshadowfaxx

Have you ever seen snow near roads and highways?

And yes, trees do use Carbon dioxide (as well as Oxygen), however car exhaust also contains Carbon Monoxide, which is a poison, it cannot be doing good to the plants, but its obviously not instantly killing them.

reply to post by xxshadowfaxx


To summarize your point.....click here.....learn more.....of what 'they' have in mind for you.....

Simply amazing piece of treason unto humanity itself.
though most of the pack were just doing what they were 'told'.
Recent arrival. Extra, extra, seA all about it.....knowadamean?

It's difficult to witness?
This is the finale to the twilight zone in both senses of the rAy.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Here's my take on global warming.

-C02 is also something plants depend on for food. where there is a niche, nature will fill it.

-menthane is supposed to be an even worse greenhouse gas.

-globalwarming is a COVER STORY. the real concern should be the real pollution, heavy metals and carcinogens that we pump into our environment. but that would rest responsability on just the corporations, which just wont cut it in this day and age. So what they will do, is tax/penalize us for something we all create, CO2, that money will go to helping the environment, and im sure a portion of it will be used for "other", and that other being, cleaning up messes from companies. And there we go, another part of our economy socialized.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas... that science is true and can't be debunked. Not only can it cause climate change, but it does right now as we speak. Right now CO2 is helping keep Earth warm, and no one can disprove that because that is proven scientificaly too. The atmospheric science of greenhouse gases can not be debunked. That is what atmospheres do, keep planets warm, and protect from the Sun's rays.

You don't even need to look at temperature data at this point because the temperature data is not a controlled experiment. There are other multiple factors which can effect the temperature data, one being the Sun, which hides the effect of greenhouse gases in that data. We already know that greenhouse gases effect the climate, it has already been proven, so there is no reason to even wait for data to further support the already proven science. We already know humans are increasing greenhouse gases on Earth. Any one denying this is probably being paid to, or has been tricked by people who are, our doesn't know a thing about atmospheric science.

The atmosphere is fragile. It is just a collection of gases being held down by gravity. Humans can absolutely change the composition of gases, especially when we create machines that produce the gases all day every day. In the end it really isn't the humans doing it, it is their machines. Does anyone want to argue that machines can effect the atmosphere and climate? I hope not.

Scientists are hoping some day we can create livable atmospheres on the Moon, and Mars, and other planets which don't have atmospheres. We know it will effect the climate there. We know it is possible. And that directly conflicts with people who claim humans can not effect the Earth's climate and atmosphere. We can, and we are already.

Stop being fooled by the politics and controversy. Man made atmospheric modification is real.



Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com