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

reply to post by mc_squared

Yes that's right - out of 47,000 possible respondents: a whopping 206 of them put their name to this crucial document. And as the link above points out - this amounts to 0.45%, which coincidentally is roughly the same number of people who fall for Nigerian email scams. Weird huh!

You obviously subscribe to the theory that majority rules in science, when in fact, it is frequently the brave minority who manage to prevail against common conceptions to advance science. In fact, if every scientist went along with the majority, here is what we would have:

1.) Those who deny that the earth is the center of the solar system would be locked up for life, as Galileo was.

2.) José de Acosta, who first proved that earthquakes and volcanoes did not come from the same source, would have been ignored.

3.) Scientists in the 19th century, most of whom held the belief that trains should never go faster than 60 mph, because all of the oxygen would have been sucked out of the trains, would have prevented the advances in transportation.

4.) Plate tectonics, now an accepted fact, would never have been accepted.

5.) The big bang theory of the origin of the universe would never have been proposed.

6.) Leonardo DaVinci would never have been able to invent all that he did, since his ideas were considered "crazy" by most scientists of the day.

7.) Surgeons would still be "bleeding out" patients who are ill, in the widely held ancient belief that such a practice rid the body of "evil" or illness.

I could go on for pages, but I have made my point. It is the rare pioneer who is brave enough to stand up to common opinion that ofter advances science.

In addition, Mr/Ms mc-squared, calling people names does nothing to advance any argument, but merely shows how empty your actual argument is. I would respectfully suggest you stick to scientific arguments, and not lower the dialog in ATS with name-calling. I expect more from ATS'ers.

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

I have a question for you.

Have you ever noticed, that when you're driving down the hwy, with trees and greenery on boths sides of you, and nothing but traffic on the hwy, that none of the trees or the greenery dies?

You would think that if carbon emissions were so bad, trees near hwys, and grass, flowers and so on, would all be dead would they not? But no, they flourish, constantly having to be pruned back from the busy roads. Even though they are closes as they can get to all the carbon emissions.

This post was HILARIOUS! Just shows how much science they teach in the US! And yes, I'm assuming this was an American; if they were from Europe I'd be worried lol...

Just for reference: An excess of carbon dioxide is positive for plants, but only in a closed environment. It's when there is a CO2 imbalance in the atmosphere that problems arise, because the planet as a whole retains more solar radiation than it needs to stay climatically temperate.

Originally posted by bronwyn82

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

blogs.telegraph.co.uk

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. 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. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
thegwpf.org

He hit the nail on the head; it's about money. The trillions of dollars behind it is the prime motivation. When Al Gore left office, he was worth relatively little money. Now he is reportedly worth $100 Million. Algore's net worth

I never wanted to believe that greed existed to that level. I thought greed primarily existed among the masses, in smaller scale, but it has become abundantly clear that greed exists all the way up the power structure to absolutely top of the hierarchy. To think people can be worth $100's of millions or even billions of dollars and still want more is beyond comprehension. To me, this is the epitome of evil, right to it's core.

Global Warming- a Liberal fraud aimed at taking money away from Big Oil and the Conservatives. It also has connections to the corrupt Bolshevik Rothschild European Union.

I don't see why it is so hard for people to understand.

The Sun and our atmosphere controls our climate. You can not disagree with that, ever.

Humans are changing the atmosphere. You can not disagree with that, ever.

If humans are changing the atmosphere, and the atmosphere controls our climate... guess what... humans are changing the climate.

It really is that simple! I can't believe we are even arguing this!

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

You obviously subscribe to the theory that majority rules in science

No, I subscribe to the science itself - which I am quite literate in, which at this point I have spent hundreds of hours studying, and which I have come to my own conclusions on. And once you get past all the idiotic propaganda that has been thoroughly debunked - the verdict is overwhelmingly in favor of CO2 and other manmade GHGs being a major factor in current and future warming.

So you want to challenge me on the actual science 'professor'?

Go ahead.

I double-dog dare you. Let's go to the debate forum and see who comes out looking like the brainwashed, close-minded one in front of all of ATS.

Because I am so sick of having this inane conversation over and over and over...

You are about the 500th person to respond to one of my posts with nothing but some loopy, hackneyed, off-topic humdrum unrelated to a subject that is already flooded with such pointless rhetorical devices.

Obviously you couldn't find anything tangible to refute any of the actual evidence I presented in my post, so thank you for wasting my time telling me all about what a hero Galileo was for standing up to the man.

Meanwhile the point I keep making in every one of these posts is how much people like YOU are all being blatantly MANIPULATED by the man.

And instead of just waxing poetic about it - I actually back it up with hard evidence and logic. I can't count how many times I've presented some vivid proof of this in my threads and posts:
You have all gotten in bed with the enemy.
Major Global Warming Denial Movement Linked Directly to ExxonMobil: PROOF
Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil
Oilsands 'acceptably clean': U.S. senator ... ummm not really.
post on Steven Milloy and the Junk Science movement

But none of you - NOT A SINGLE ONE - has ever had the guts to stand up and address this possibility with any sort of an open mind or ability to swallow your pride for the sake of truth. Instead you always run off and hide behind the same old scared, weak-minded cliches about how brainwashed everybody else must be as a result.

All this does is show exactly how utterly fearful YOU are of things YOU don't understand - so instead you choose to remain blindly ignorant of them for your personal safety.

And THIS is the exact same reason people refused to believe that the Earth was round, or that it revolved around the Sun, or that evolution wasn't a hoax and dinosaur bones weren't just put there to test their faith...all because they preferred their little ideological safety nets over the FACTS - not because 46,494 other scientists disagreed with Galileo.

reply to post by 0ne10


actually all of our weather and climate are because of the sun and the water on the planet, not so much the atmosphere.
water heating and cooling is what gives us weather, evaporation and cooling.
Man has an impact, but it is the degree in to which we have an impact is the entire argument, skeptics do not think we should not act to stop our wasteful ways, we just don't want to be slugged with a carbon tax to do it.

reply to post by 0ne10

The Sun and our atmosphere controls our climate. You can not disagree with that, ever. Humans are changing the atmosphere. You can not disagree with that, ever. If humans are changing the atmosphere, and the atmosphere controls our climate... guess what... humans are changing the climate. It really is that simple! I can't believe we are even arguing this!

Actually, it is NOT that simple by a long shot. You act as if the sun and the atmosphere are the only two factors involved. There are so many other factors involved, that NO ONE to date has come up with a VALID algorithm to describe how these factors interact to produce change.
Other major factors include the tilt of the earth's axis, changes in the wobble and orbit of the earth, changes in extraterrestrial inputs such as gamma rays, ocean temperatures and currents, land formation changes, volcano output, changes in albedo of the earth and ocean, populations of oceanic flora and aquatic sea life, etc.

If all factors mentioned above, as well as all other factors not mentioned were to hold constant, then your statement would make sense. However, all other factors DO NOT hold constant.

We do not even have a SIMPLE algorithm that can predict with 100% accuracy local weather, as anyone who has been surprised by a snowstorm can attest. Do you even BEGIN to understand how much more complex it is to try to predict a macro-parameter such as Global Temperature? If you DID, and you don't, you would see how complex this issue is.

Politicians, non-scientists, and others should stay out of this entire discussion, as they haven't a CLUE as to how complex this issue is.

In addition, billions of dollars are being funneled into this arena, to justify corporate greed, and promote corporate policies, the intention of which is to generate powers of 10 in more profit.The main recipient of these channeled billions are academic frauds, who take the money, and tell the corporations what they want to hear.

This entire AWG issue is nothing but a political football, devoid of any PROVEN science.

This physicist has no credibility.

He also presents NO solid evidence for his case, he's just simply jumped on the denier bandwagon like an idiot like most of you people have.

Only uneducated idiots who get off on conspiracy theories deny global warming. Which is nothing new for most deniers.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
This physicist has no credibility.

So says the strangely named person on the internet...

Originally posted by justadood
i love how those who deny climate change deny any science that disproves their pre-conceived notion, and yet turn around and hold up other 'science' as evidence of their beliefs.

it really does remind me of the christian fundamentalists and their belief the earth is 3000 years old. The devil hid them dinasaur bones to fool us!

I'm a Christian and have never met another who claims the Earth is 3,000 years old.

Ridiculous.

reply to post by munkey66


I was trying to simplify it so you people can see the connection, but then you take to too literally and tell me I'm wrong because you don't know how to see the simple logic.

Originally posted by munkey66
actually all of our weather and climate are because of the sun and the water on the planet, not so much the atmosphere.

Wrong, the atmosphere is the main aspect of the Earth that keeps extreme changes in climate from happening.

Do you disagree with this following information?

en.wikipedia.org...

The atmosphere protects life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation, warming the surface through heat retention (greenhouse effect), and reducing temperature extremes between day and night.

Please tell me, do you disagree with the above?

Originally posted by munkey66
water heating and cooling is what gives us weather, evaporation and cooling.

Weather = state of the atmosphere. Without an atmosphere, we wouldn't have weather. Hence why I said the atmosphere controls our climate.

Originally posted by munkey66
Man has an impact, but it is the degree in to which we have an impact is the entire argument, skeptics do not think we should not act to stop our wasteful ways, we just don't want to be slugged with a carbon tax to do it.

There, you said it, man has an impact. Thank you for proving me right.

Human impact is increasing day after day. That is why people believe we need to do something now before it is too late in the future.

See, I am freaking frustrated over this stupid carbon tax.... all of you people are so fearful of it that you will deny proven science just to avoid it. I don't want to be taxed either, trust me.... but I'm not going to deny science because of it.

reply to post by Mak Manto

It kind of is in this situation. Most people don't understand the full science behind global warming, so who do you turn to?

Scientists.

Except there are scientists on every side that say mankind is involved, and others that say they don't. So, that's why we do turn to these organizations. The larger number of scientists who do say that we're helping global warming is far bigger then a few scientists who say it's not.

You can claim all you want that that one scientist could be correct. Well, he could be, but like I said before, who do you trust?

I trust all of the minds who say we're involved with this.

NO!!!

Using sheer numbers to prove "truth" is a fallacy of logic. Why can't you understand that?

Would you like for me to remind you of the NUMEROUS times in human history that the number of experts to agree on something scientific have been completely wrong??

Numbers who agree or disagree is absolutely irrelevant to the truth. It stands on it's own merits even if NO ONE agrees to it.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Actually, it is NOT that simple by a long shot.

Actually it IS.

Every one of those things you just listed pertain to how the Sun or the atmosphere affect the climate:

the tilt of the earth's axis, changes in the wobble and orbit of the earth

Merely relay the amount of SUNLIGHT the Earth receives - which can be measured and which is well understood in climatology and geology.

changes in extraterrestrial inputs such as gamma rays

The climatic impact of cosmic rays - which is only still a theory by the way - works by affecting the amount of cloud cover IN THE ATMOSPHERE, and has shown no observed correlation for the last 15+ years.

land formation changes

Again affect the amount of SUNLIGHT which is either absorbed or reflected back to space.

volcano output

Affect the amount of aerosols and gases that are IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Which eventually fall back down to Earth and can be measured, and have a clear cooling effect anyway.

changes in albedo of the earth and ocean

See land formation changes

populations of oceanic flora and aquatic sea life

Affect the amount of greenhouse gases that go IN THE ATMOSPHERE.


As for ocean currents - they are part of the internal climate system. Meaning that although they redistribute heat in and around the planet, they are not an external forcing, and themselves rely on changes that depend on the atmosphere and the Sun.


So as much as you want to play this all off as how complicated it makes global warming science sound it DOESN'T. Global warming comes down to some simple physics which One10 summed up pretty neatly: basically if you add energy to a system - it must heat up. End of story. It's something called the conservation of energy and it's pretty much the most fundamental thing in all of science.

What all the above complexity does speak to is the difference between global warming and climate change - or since you decided to bring this up as well - the difference between weather and climate.

Scientists KNOW the planet is heating up overall because of the absolutely kindergarten physics involved - this is why you have the umbrella term "Global Warming".

What scientists are less sure about is how that overall heat increase will change the dynamics within the planet: some places like the Arctic will get much warmer while others will get slightly colder, some places drier, others much wetter. This is why you have the more specific term "Climate Change" (not because scientists invented it as some sort of cop-out in case it got colder):
Can We At Least Get One Thing Straight About Climate Change?



As for your assertion that science can't predict climate because they can't predict the weather - this is a perfect example of the sort of red-herring logical fallacies the Big Oil funded propagandists have planted in your head.

Using this oversimplified argument is like trying to tell me I have no way of knowing whether it should be warmer in the summer than the winter because I can't predict whether it's going to rain next Thursday.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Actually, it is NOT that simple by a long shot.

Actually, it is that simple when you think about it logically. Of course there is a lot more going on, but the atmosphere is the main part of it. The atmosphere is a major part of Earth, any changes you make to it will change the climate. It's that simple..

Do you disagree with this following fact?

en.wikipedia.org...

The atmosphere protects life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation, warming the surface through heat retention (greenhouse effect), and reducing temperature extremes between day and night.

I really want to know, do you disagree with the above statement?

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
You act as if the sun and the atmosphere are the only two factors involved.

It really is the two main factors. Not the only factors, but the main factors. Without the atmosphere, we would all burn to death in the day, and freeze to death in the night. Changing the atmosphere will change the balance of Earths climate.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
There are so many other factors involved, that NO ONE to date has come up with a VALID algorithm to describe how these factors interact to produce change.

You don't need an algorithm. All you need is logic. I don't need an algorithm that explains how putting a jacket on in the winter makes you warmer. Or how taking a jacket off in the winter makes you colder.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Other major factors include the tilt of the earth's axis, changes in the wobble and orbit of the earth, changes in extraterrestrial inputs such as gamma rays, ocean temperatures and currents, land formation changes, volcano output, changes in albedo of the earth and ocean, populations of oceanic flora and aquatic sea life, etc.

Yes, I agree all of those factors also effect the weather... but they are ALL IRRELEVANT to the argument that increased CO2 can change the climate.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
If all factors mentioned above, as well as all other factors not mentioned were to hold constant, then your statement would make sense. However, all other factors DO NOT hold constant.

All irrelevant. How does that disprove the effect of increased CO2 on the climate? It doesn't.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
We do not even have a SIMPLE algorithm that can predict with 100% accuracy local weather, as anyone who has been surprised by a snowstorm can attest. Do you even BEGIN to understand how much more complex it is to try to predict a macro-parameter such as Global Temperature? If you DID, and you don't, you would see how complex this issue is.

I see the complexity of Earth's systems and weather... but all of it is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the effect that increased greenhouse gases have on Earth.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Politicians, non-scientists, and others should stay out of this entire discussion, as they haven't a CLUE as to how complex this issue is.

The issue is not complex at all, you just think it is. It all comes down to basic science. Our atmosphere balances our climate.... changes to the atmosphere will change our climate. It's that simple....

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
In addition, billions of dollars are being funneled into this arena, to justify corporate greed, and promote corporate policies, the intention of which is to generate powers of 10 in more profit.The main recipient of these channeled billions are academic frauds, who take the money, and tell the corporations what they want to hear.

Here we go again.. another complaint about the taxes... Can't you for once leave your fear of taxation out of this debate about global warming? Complaining about greed and taxes has nothing to do with the science behind climate change.

Climate change was predicted 100's of years ago when combustion engines first were introduced. It was a very real threat then, and a very real threat now.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
This entire AWG issue is nothing but a political football, devoid of any PROVEN science.

No, YOU make it into a political football by continually bringing up the political aspect of it. Man-caused climate change is very real, and has always been. It was proven when humans learned the importance of atmospheres!

reply to post by mc_squared


I'm glad you can see the simplicity of it all. I didn't feel like breaking down his complexity and showing how it all is related to the Sun and the atmosphere... you did a great job of doing that.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by mc_squared

 

Yes that's right - out of 47,000 possible respondents: a whopping 206 of them put their name to this crucial document. And as the link above points out - this amounts to 0.45%, which coincidentally is roughly the same number of people who fall for Nigerian email scams. Weird huh!

You obviously subscribe to the theory that majority rules in science, when in fact, it is frequently the brave minority who manage to prevail against common conceptions to advance science. In fact, if every scientist went along with the majority, here is what we would have:

1.) Those who deny that the earth is the center of the solar system would be locked up for life, as Galileo was.

2.) José de Acosta, who first proved that earthquakes and volcanoes did not come from the same source, would have been ignored.

3.) Scientists in the 19th century, most of whom held the belief that trains should never go faster than 60 mph, because all of the oxygen would have been sucked out of the trains, would have prevented the advances in transportation.

4.) Plate tectonics, now an accepted fact, would never have been accepted.

5.) The big bang theory of the origin of the universe would never have been proposed.

6.) Leonardo DaVinci would never have been able to invent all that he did, since his ideas were considered "crazy" by most scientists of the day.

7.) Surgeons would still be "bleeding out" patients who are ill, in the widely held ancient belief that such a practice rid the body of "evil" or illness.

I could go on for pages, but I have made my point. It is the rare pioneer who is brave enough to stand up to common opinion that ofter advances science.

In addition, Mr/Ms mc-squared, calling people names does nothing to advance any argument, but merely shows how empty your actual argument is. I would respectfully suggest you stick to scientific arguments, and not lower the dialog in ATS with name-calling. I expect more from ATS'ers.

Clearly you are one who DOES understand how science works and that very little is ever "settled".

The other issue is that many, if not most ideas in science that become "in vogue" (whether they turn out to be right or wrong or are still undecided) don't have such broad an impact on the lives and livelihood of so many people. Galileo's position screwed up his own life but had little if any impact on the daily lives of the average person. Same with other scientific theories that were once scoffed at by most scientists and are now widely accepted, like the idea that dinosaurs are most closely related to birds rather than lizards as had been assumed in the past.

Someone mentioned Nigerian e-mail scams - well, surely you must also know that one of the huge red flags that often mark a scam is that the scammer requires immediate action. The scammer demands that you must pay as soon as possible, otherwise you will be missing out on the "deal of a lifetime", a "huge inheritance", a "huge lottery payment" or, at worst, something awful will happen to you (or to someone else).

You AWG proponents sit there and scratch your heads and wonder how we (the skeptics) can be "so stupid"; well, you are mistaking stupidity for leeriness and warranted caution. Almost no other faction of the environmental movement (or any other activism that I can think of right now) has urgently demanded such punitive and draconian "solutions" to what is perceived to be a problem.
For instance, consider animal (and plant) species that have been driven to near-extinction from over-harvesting and habitat loss. Generally (depending on what country(s) the species in in, of course), hunting/harvesting is banned, and sometimes parts of the species' environment is also protected. If all goes well, that species recovers, sometimes to the point where it can be viable enough to be managed as a game species and money for conservation is made off of strictly controlled hunting/harvesting. Another thing is the banning of CFCs in aerosol cans. Companies that made these types of products had to switch propellants, but again millions of people weren't plunged into economic suffering because of these sorts of fixes to environmental issues.

Tell me, what would you do if your electric/utility bill doubled? What if what you are paying at the gas/diesel pump doubled or even tripled? Then there's every other product that you use that, at some point, will be subject to some sort of "carbon" tax. You might think all the complaining is coming from a few rich right-wingers, but in reality it's going to be someone's grandma living in poverty who dies of hypothermia because she can't pay her recently doubled utility bills.

If those behind the whole AGW thing really cared about the environment (and the people who must live in it) they would come up with a "solution" to the "problem" that won't cause untold suffering to the lower middle class and poor. There are plenty of ways to help the environment that don't involve putting millions of people in the poor house, but there's WAY too much money to be made to abandon these diabolical carbon tax schemes.

reply to post by bronwyn82


There are some things that are hard to verify or quantify to prove a theory but how can ANY scientist or ANY rational person refute the shrinking glaciers in my valley where I live (Grand Teton National Park), all throughout the Alps, Glacier National Park, the Andes, Greenland, Antarctica, the shrinking sea ice in the Arctic now allowing the Northern Passage to be transited for the first time in recorded history, and other shrinking glaciers, all with photo evidence taken over the years by tourists and scientists for decades to the present. Is this all faked? No Way. There is the Ostrich Effect though. If you keep your head buried.....er....somewhere..... its hard to see plain and obvious evidence alllll over the globe.

I do not buy into the global warming hogwash, because it is based on pseudoscience. I personally think GW is meant to be a distraction to the masses from the real problems we have created on this planet. It should be obvious to any reasonable person that we as a species are destroying the planet. The biggest man made problems I see are: deforestation, pollution of our waters, and over fishing/hunting. Until the UN, our government, and the media addresses those issues over the GW hysteria I will continue to believe there is a wide spread spread conspiracy to keep the sheeple in the dark.

reply to post by bronwyn82


What I would like to know is what is the Latest News on the " Anti Green Movement " ? These guys gotta get their Act Together and Speak Out More Against the Globalist Agenda Global Warming Lie .Where do I Sign Up ?...........