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

reply to post by harryhaller


You were fooled by another hoax.

Volcanoes don't produce nearly as much CO2 as humans and their machines. You were fooled to believe they do. Check your facts.

Case close.

Originally posted by harryhaller
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

Smearing an opponent's character is despicable, and the tactic most favoured by the global warming movement against all who question their "consensus".
Do you have anything of substance to add?

Smearing character?
Credibility matters.... unless you have a fixed agenda - then only what is said matters, not who says it or whether they can be believed.

I am sure everyone without ethics and something to hide thinks "smearing character" is despicable.

Here...more substance... www.spiegel.de...

According to a US study, 97 percent of all climatologists worldwide assume that greenhouse gases produced by humans are warming the Earth. Nevertheless, one third of Germans and 40 percent of Americans doubt that the Earth is getting warmer. And many people are convinced that climatologists are divided into two opposing camps on the issue -- which is untrue.

How about this... ? www.spiegel.de...
The Traveling Salesmen of Climate Skepticism

A handful of US scientists have made names for themselves by casting doubt on global warming research. In the past, the same people have also downplayed the dangers of passive smoking, acid rain and the ozone hole. In all cases, the tactics are the same: Spread doubt and claim it's too soon to take action.

Many scientists do not sufficiently explain the results of their research. Some climatologists have also been arrogant or have refused to turn over their data to critics. Some overlook inconsistencies or conjure up exaggerated horror scenarios that are not always backed by science. For example, sloppy work was responsible for a prediction in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that all Himalayan glaciers would have melted by 2035. It was a grotesque mistake that plunged the IPCC into a credibility crisis. Singer and his fellow combatants take advantage of such mistakes and utilize their experiences defending the tobacco industry. For decades, Big Tobacco managed to cast doubt on the idea that smoking kills. An internal document produced by tobacco maker Brown & Williamson states: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public."

In 2001, the administration of then-President George W. Bush reneged on previous climate commitments. After that, the head of the US delegation to the Kyoto negotiations met with the oil lobbyists from the Global Climate Coalition to thank them for their expertise, saying that President Bush had "rejected Kyoto in part based on input from you." Singer's comrade-in-arms Patrick Michaels waged a particularly sharp-tongued campaign against the phalanx of climatologists. One of his books is called: "The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming." Michaels has managed to turn doubt into a lucrative business. The German Coal Association paid him a hefty fee for a study in the 1990s, and a US electric utility once donated $100,000 to his PR firm.

reply to post by Nicolas Flamel


Well that graph sure looks scary. To bad there is no source of the underlying numbers.

Here is one with sources. Unfortunately it does not contain that scary, more than one degree F rise since 1960 but it still show some correclation.

www.climate4you.com...

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Yeah whatever...

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

Sure. First of all you can not equate "protecting the environment" with "reducing carbon emissions".

Access to cheap energy lead to progress and prosperity. Progress and prosperity has been the only thing that can be proven to prevent over population. Progress and prosperity causes innovation and thereby new and better energy sources that will eventually replace fossil fuels once these run out. On the other hand decreasing the access to energy will lead to increased powerty, more suffering especially in third world countries and increased populations in these countries. It leads to less innovation and less ability to adapt to a changing environment. Less access to better (and cleaner) technologies leading society in a perpertual downward spiral into a new dark age.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Meteorology is probably just applied Physics. I think Physics is the most general science.

reply to post by Clavicula


How can you equate "reducing carbon emissions" with "decreasing the access to energy"?

There are many ways which you can reduce carbon emissions without decreasing the access to energy.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

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.

edit on 11-10-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

I would argue that digging into the ground like trolls and burning dinoflagellates from 100 million years ago is about inefficient. There is the price of a unit of energy derived from hydrocarbons and then there is the cost. Most recently in the Gulf, that cost per unit of energy just skyrocketed; though we will not admit as much to ourselves so long as the price stays down.

Like it or not, we live in a society where a general pool of wealth is created by its members, and used for projects larger than the individual. While I am a pretty big fan of Ayn Rand, I can also clearly see the intrinsic value of having a police department which will respond to a break in, or a fire department which will stop my neighbor's house from burning down. Science operates in the same manner. The funding for my research (studying the metabolic effects of anoxia and reoxygenation on bivalves under various heavy metal stressors) comes from the NSF. Is this the best solution? No. Does it work reasonably well at the moment, I think so.

Demanding your money is different than demanding a public works project. Ultimately, no, I do not think that you should have to pay in to these sorts of things if you do not want to. However, when advances are made, and we start printing nano-antennas on plastic bags on a large scale as result of public funding, I would be inclined to let you keep burning your ancient microbes.

Originally posted by KringleFantastico
However, when advances are made, and we start printing nano-antennas on plastic bags on a large scale as result of public funding, I would be inclined to let you keep burning your ancient microbes.

You are living in a fantasy. And what with the plastic bag comment... If it was profitable, private companies would do it.

The green fad is going away and the carbon cult has been exposed as being lead by a bunch of anti-human filth. There are some in the west who will cling to their new religion until they die, but their influence is growing weaker in the rest of the world.


*Just so ya'll know, I believe in private property rights and so am against pollution of other's property. That being said, you cannot got to the nuisance and expect to have a say in getting rid of it; you went to it.
For Example: If you buy property next to a factory that produces a stench, you cannot tell the factory to change. If you knew the stench was there when you bought the property then you should have taken that into account when you were negotiating the price of the property.

reply to post by KringleFantastico


You're right. Nuclear power is more efficient. Would you support that?

Originally posted by sum1one
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...

There have been at least 5 major ice ages and countless minor ice ages over the last 2.5 Billion Years. They are very well documented in the earths sedimentary records.
Although it isn't certain how long it takes to go into an ice age or even come out, the point is that there have been many yet you have only heard of 1.

That tells me that you are probably more inclined to believe what you are being told today is the absolute truth, no one wants to remind us that there have been more than 1 ice age as it will make people start to ask questions.
The whole co2 and pollution bit is different, many different types of polutions get pumped into the atmosphere which are not co2 and of course water vapour itself causes more climate change than anything else on this planet, pollution has given us a different problem known as global dimming which is filtering out the sun.

Does anyone knows what happens if you have a glasshouse which has had very dirty windows for quite a time and you suddenly clean them spotless?
the temperature in that glasshouse sours and the plants stress and die.

we lie in a giant glass house and that was illistrated after 9/11, after the flights where cancelled the temperature actually rose.

The change in the temperature difference was plus 1.1 degree Celsius, equal to plus 2 degrees Fahrenheit, above the 30-year long-term mean diurnal temperature range. The researchers compared the temperature ranges on these three days to those of the three days directly before Sept. 11 and the three days after Sept. 14, finding that the days before and after were similar, but that the three days in question differed by 1.8 degrees Celsius or 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit.

source

yup, another "professor" on the big oil dole.
Bottom line... check out temps in Greenland, which if the ice fields melt will
raise ocean sea levels by 7 METERS, over 22 FEET.
yesterday, ALL TIME RECORD HIGHS FOR OCTOBER 10...
Kangerlussuaq... home of the gigantic Kangerlussuaq glacier... RECORD HIGH TEMP of 60 deg F
35 freekin degrees above NORMAL! and there's nothing to worry about?

are you anti-global waming people living on the same planet??

Nuuk, ALL TIME RECORD HIGHS FOR OCTOBER 10...
68 deg F.. 37 freekin degrees above normal!

yup, all is just fine and dandy in the fairy land of big oil.
keep believing the complete and utter nonsense of the anti GW people,
and when the ocean starts pouring into your living room you'll only have yourself to blame.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Can you prove that our atmosphere doesn't effect our climate?

Can you prove that humans can not change the atmosphere?

reply to post by munkey66


Things are heating up even though the reasons are not clear.

www.physorg.com...

reply to post by munkey66


..but you are talking about visible light. Dirt on a greenhouse glass blocks visible light and other wavelengths of light, that is why the temperature decreases when the glass is dirty, and rises when it is clean. Same with clouds, they block visible light.

CO2 is transparent and doesn't block visible light.

CO2 is a confirmed greenhouse gas. It lets a certain wavelength of light pass, and when that light is absorbed and emitted from the ground at a different wavelength it can't escape because CO2 blocks that different wavelength.

The same exact effect happens in car and truck interiors. Light/radiation can get it, but it can't get out, and it heats up the interior.

That is how our atmosphere works. Most people denying the truth of man-made climate change are directly denying the basic science of how atmospheres work, and their importance. That is ridiculous, you can't just deny how atmospheres work.

anybody could tell you that scam, all the time i hear that the earth is getting warmer that the temp has risen 2 degrees in the past 30 years, meanwhile yesterday were i live the temp dropped and rose by 15 degrees and nothing happen, birds didn't fall from the sky, plants didn't die off, it was just a normal day. in fact the earth can support way more temp swings than people give it credit for. if earths temp rises out of whack then move to northern canada, in the future it'll be tropical.

human co2 levels are about 1-2% above whats called the the norm in nature, (thats with all the cows farting and all the coal plants and heaps tires buring right this minute)

could it be that the levels are " high " because we are deforesting the forests that absorb co2 ? wink wink ...

besides , the "global warming program" is a privatly owned company that would be granted the power to tax nations based on their emissions , ..

tax money from across the globe to a private company , anyone see the scam in this ,

not to mention all the millions if not billions that has all ready been poured in their direction yet no emissions ave dropped ,

its just a pyramid scam , '

get over it and enjoy you life.

reply to post by randomname


You can't just move entire farm lands which produce crops which feed millions of people. If the temperatures change in the farm lands, they can't produce enough food to support the population. It's really hard to grow crops when the heat absorbs all the water in the soil that they need to survive, and dries up all the plants. If you move the farm lands, then you have to increase travel time to support cities that don't live near the farm land, and increased travel time means more rotten food being delivered and thrown away.

Just last month was the hottest day EVER recorded in Southern California. Something is changing... be it the Sun, or the atmosphere. God forbid it is both .

I find his last parting comments to be of particular interest!

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

thegwpf.org...

I tell you what, with all the posts on this thread, its obvious you have nothing else to worry about!



Good to see all the wealthy people discussing the asinine....

reply to post by Silcone Synapse

Our blessed time upon this rock has happened in a period of stability that is not "the norm"when you look at the records of our planet,through the rocks,ice etc.

I noticed that as well, earth is really not a very friendly place.

You don't get off alive.