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

Here is a local example of climate change...


www.ajc.com...

Originally posted by SKUNK2
How do the man-made global warming *cough* i mean climate change retards explain the FACT that all the planets in our solar system are heating up all at the same time???

They ignore it.

There are TRILLIONS of dollars on the line here man!!

I guess will become the only living creature to be taxed before becoming extinct.

reply to post by 0ne10


I am all for any new technology that does not increase the price of, or decrease the overall access to energy.

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by Mak Manto
WOW!

One? ONE PROFESSOR IS SAYING GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE? Good God, ATS! We've got to get ready! A Physics professor is saying that global warming is a fraud!

And to think we listen to the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science about how global warming can become a future threat!

Yes, this ONE PROFESSOR SURELY IS LEADING A REVOLUTION!

I like your sarcasm, but sometimes, it only takes one.

In the Middle Ages, only ONE man said that the Earth was round, despite EVERY other scientist agreeing it was flat.

Look, if this was a bet, I would place my winnings on the ORGANIZATIONS that state global warming is real. You have one scientist. We have THOUSANDS of scientists who are dead sure global warming is being impacted by humanity, and that if we don't try to slow or stop this, in a few short generations, we're going to be in serious trouble.

Let me say this: There is a consensus by the scientific community global warming is happening, and it's by our hands with the release of greenhouse gasses.

Who you going to believe?

So what?

Your argument is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

It's called Argumentum ad Populum.

The number of people who agree on something has NOTHING to do with it being true or not.

Your argument is completely invalid.

I've often wondered why power stations aren't built for generating power from GEOTHERMAL energy?

There are a few of them, but they are rare. In the USA only about 1 million homes are powered by geothermal.

Geothermal is safe, free (after the initial investment) and if a power plant explodes, doesn't make an entire area uninhabitable for centuries.

There are also almost zero contaminants from geothermal.

If I had some money, and was building a home, I would INSIST that it had a geothermal power source.

I don't know why more people don't insist on using this clean, efficient technology.

reply to post by Mak Manto

You have one scientist.

More then one poster has said there is only one scientist making these claims,

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)

Who: Dr. Arthur Robinson of the OISM

What: release of names in OISM "Petition Project"

When: 10 AM, Monday May 19

Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC

Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics."

newsbusters.org...

Petition project

www.petitionproject.org...

Are surface temperature records reliable?

and as far as some of those graphs go, they are unreliable.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by KringleFantastico

 

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

I would, but I think that it is pretty expensive, leads to the subjugation of mining territories and lends itself to control over product by cartels, much like oil. As for the wastes of nuclear power, I have maintained for quite a while that we should pick a place out in the middle of nowhere, say 100 miles by 100 miles, and dump everything there. Sure it will almost certainly ruin that aquifer and completely destroy that ecosystem's balance, but it absolutely beats the alternative.

We are bathed in energy every single day cleanly and completely for free. If every home gathered its own energy, the grid, as we know it, would disappear. Think of the broader implications in terms of international conflict over energy rights, and the greater degree of equity for all of mankind. It seems reasonable to make every effort to try to make use of that.

I think that it would be neat to build an equation of the climate fraudsters' claims. The manifest equation may go something like this:

Humans pollute => carbon emissions => global climate change => death to the earth, flowers, baby seals, etc.

Reduced carbon emissions = life for baby seals, bunnies, flowers, etc.
----------------------------------------------------

The actual equation is a little more complicated, and it would work something like this:

Problem => Solution Need to "save the earth" bogus claims of environmental disaster => tax any/all carbon emissions of humans and industries via mandatory purchase of "carbon credits"
I I
V V
Use some of these funds for "nation building skim off significant percentages of these carbon
and green outreach" credit funds and keep for our own profit.

I I
V V

Create "Environmental Security Forces" Become an even more Godlike class, with untold
that can "nudge" (militarily) nations and wealth and the power of life and death at our
groups that don't comply with the rules fingertips.

I
V
Support the existence of organisms, groups, individuals
who support a "pure" earth habitat.

I
V
Cull out organisms, groups, individuals who "pollute"
with impure substances, acts, ideas, philosophies, etc.

---------------------------------------------------

Hmmm...hasn't this been tried before? No, seriously, help me out on this, guys.
Thanks.

Originally posted by 0ne10
reply to post by munkey66

 

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.

edit on 11-10-2010 by 0ne10 because: (no reason given)

The atmosphere/greenhouse analogy fails on many levels. The most important being convection. In an atmosphere hot air rises and then expands and cools. That can of cause not happen when the air is confined by physical glass panels. It is true that CO2 absorbs some wavelenghts of infrared but the overall effect is small compared to the amount of water vapour already blocking many of the the same vawelenghts. Also the effect of CO2 is inverse logarithmic as described by the version of the Beer Lambert law that apply to an atmosphere.

en.wikipedia.org...

The effect is in other words not linear end decreases at higher levels.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

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.

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

www.practicalenvironmentalist.com...
solarpowerauthority.com...

This is what they look like. The first sheet was printed on a New York Times delivery bag. It can be done for pennies per yard. As for why it has not been pushed to market, I will leave that open to debate. But the fact remains that it is possible. We should not, and cannot be blinded by mistrust and cynicism to the point where we retreat into a new dark age. You can take the keys from the "anti-human filth" by rendering their methods obsolete. Nearly free energy for mankind is a good place to start.

Originally posted by SassyCat

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
Bottle Water ---- Less healthy than most tap water, with added chemical harmful to the body, and most of the good minerals taken out.

Electricity ---- We are told we are wasting electricity, as if there wasn't enough. It's impossible to run out of electricity. FACT.

Organic foods ----- Costs twice as much as regularily grown foods. But my question is, when did they stop growing organically? And Why is it cheaper to buy chemically grown foods, you'd think the chemicals would cost more than just plain old organic?

Bottom line..... We must pay for everything we do. From going in the sun, to drinking water, to eating "organic" foods. They even found a way to charge us on the air we breathe. It's pretty genius when you think about it. It's also twisted and evil. But that's the world we live in today.

1. Some people must drink water from PET bottles because tap water is poisonous to intolerable extents.
2. Electricity is not free and yes you can (and probably will) run out of electricity once fossil fuels are gone.
3. Organic foods don't use chemically synthesized inorganic fertilizers, extremely toxic pesticides and many other nice things.

Bottom line, yeah you must pay and the more we breed and more we destroy, more we'll pay - everything has a price, from lavish lifestyle to stupidity which seem to have no bounds. Yes we live in twisted and evil world but we made it so ourselves... not evil reptilian space aliens or Obama as many here believe.

I don't know why I'm even answering this but what the heck.

Uh.... that was a pretty idiotic reply to my post.

Lets see....

Since when did we use fossil fuels to run electricity???? Is water a fossil fuel? Is sunlight a fossil fuel? Is wind a fossil fuel? Are magnets fossil fuels? Is lightning a fossil fuel? Not to mention batteries....

If you honestly believe that we can run out of electricity, then you'd better think about it. It can be created in so many different ways, it is literally impossible.

I never said orgainic foods used chemicals of any kind. Re-read my post please.

As for people that must drink Bottle water.... That means they're sick people, just like an albino can't go in the sun. There's always exceptions. But for the general population, bottle water doesn't do a damn thing.

So would you like to continue attempting to debunk my post?

other nations aren't hearing or allowed to hear the message

r

Originally posted by babybunnies
I've often wondered why power stations aren't built for generating power from GEOTHERMAL energy?

To an extent I agree, though it can be expensive and there are other issues:

Geothermal project in California is shut down

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by Mak Manto
WOW!

One? ONE PROFESSOR IS SAYING GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE? Good God, ATS! We've got to get ready! A Physics professor is saying that global warming is a fraud!

And to think we listen to the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science about how global warming can become a future threat!

Yes, this ONE PROFESSOR SURELY IS LEADING A REVOLUTION!

I like your sarcasm, but sometimes, it only takes one.

In the Middle Ages, only ONE man said that the Earth was round, despite EVERY other scientist agreeing it was flat.

Look, if this was a bet, I would place my winnings on the ORGANIZATIONS that state global warming is real. You have one scientist. We have THOUSANDS of scientists who are dead sure global warming is being impacted by humanity, and that if we don't try to slow or stop this, in a few short generations, we're going to be in serious trouble.

Let me say this: There is a consensus by the scientific community global warming is happening, and it's by our hands with the release of greenhouse gasses.

Who you going to believe?

So what?

Your argument is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

It's called Argumentum ad Populum.

The number of people who agree on something has NOTHING to do with it being true or not.

Your argument is completely invalid.

Hold on a second...

This is not just people BELIEVING IT. It's not like scientists are going, "Well, we want to believe it! It has to be true!"

These organizations that believe that global warming is true are backed with evidence that this is occurring! This is not like they believe something without any proof!

Originally posted by Clavicula

The atmosphere/greenhouse analogy fails on many levels.

It's only ever been a loose analogy - a simplification to make it easier for the lay person to understand.

No-one (except a few deniers) ever thought the atmosphere worked the same as a greenhouse does.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

You have one scientist.

More then one poster has said there is only one scientist making these claims,

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)

Who: Dr. Arthur Robinson of the OISM

What: release of names in OISM "Petition Project"

When: 10 AM, Monday May 19

Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC

Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics."

newsbusters.org...

Petition project

www.petitionproject.org...

And like I said, I have entire organizations of scientists who are backing up their credit and claim by saying that mankind has had a big hand in global warming.

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by Mak Manto
WOW!

One? ONE PROFESSOR IS SAYING GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE? Good God, ATS! We've got to get ready! A Physics professor is saying that global warming is a fraud!

And to think we listen to the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science about how global warming can become a future threat!

Yes, this ONE PROFESSOR SURELY IS LEADING A REVOLUTION!

I like your sarcasm, but sometimes, it only takes one.

In the Middle Ages, only ONE man said that the Earth was round, despite EVERY other scientist agreeing it was flat.

Look, if this was a bet, I would place my winnings on the ORGANIZATIONS that state global warming is real. You have one scientist. We have THOUSANDS of scientists who are dead sure global warming is being impacted by humanity, and that if we don't try to slow or stop this, in a few short generations, we're going to be in serious trouble.

Let me say this: There is a consensus by the scientific community global warming is happening, and it's by our hands with the release of greenhouse gasses.

Who you going to believe?

So what?

Your argument is a LOGICAL FALLACY.

It's called Argumentum ad Populum.

The number of people who agree on something has NOTHING to do with it being true or not.

Your argument is completely invalid.

Hold on a second...

This is not just people BELIEVING IT. It's not like scientists are going, "Well, we want to believe it! It has to be true!"

These organizations that believe that global warming is true are backed with evidence that this is occurring! This is not like they believe something without any proof!

I'm sure they do believe it. There are also scientists who do not believe in man-made climate change.

Where your reasoning and argument becomes invalid and a logical fallacy is when you us the number of scientists who believe it. Numbers are irrelevant to truth. All you have presented is X number of scientists believe in man-made global warming. X number of scientists can be wrong.

Truth is not decided upon by the number of people who agree to it. You could have 1,000,000 scientists who think the sky is red and 1 scientist who thinks the sky is blue and the 1 scientist would be correct, not the 1 million who think otherwise.

Appeal to Numbers is a logical fallacy, it's an irrelevant argument.

Originally posted by 547000
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.

Oxygen is a corrosive - that's why it rusts iron. Oxygen is explosive - that's why you aren't allowed to smoke around oxygen tents. Oxygen is toxic in large doses.

Oxygen is a WMD.

I'm going to go out and cut down a couple of trees right now, to do my part to save humanity.