Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Fox news is just a headline. I linked numerous other sources...that are only hours old.

Your link is from 2009. A lot has come to light since then.
And besides that, the short article you linked, which is mere politics, and not about
Science...is really not going to support your idea that expert scientists still support
the consensus of GW.

From your link...

TheUEgroup comprises only 2%of the top 50 climate researchers
as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of
researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200 www.pnas.org...

So in other words, ot representive of an expert scientific body.

reply to post by Honor93


There are plenty of sources that refute everything about this scientists' non-existent "expertise" on Global Warming. This story isn't about GW - it's about Big Oil trying to deny the truth to the public by parading it's paid GW "experts" before the Press with non-scientific stories designed to confuse people and prolong their own mega-profits for as long as humanly possible - while the world burns.

'Nuff said.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Fox news is just a headline. I linked numerous other sources...that are only hours old.

Your link is from 2009. A lot has come to light since then.
And besides that, the short article you linked, which is mere politics, and not about
Science...is really not going to support your idea that expert scientists still support
the consensus of GW.

From your link...

TheUEgroup comprises only 2%of the top 50 climate researchers
as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of
researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200 www.pnas.org...

So in other words, ot representive of an expert scientific body.

"expert scientific body" - of which your boys are not.

2nd.

reply to post by Honor93

if a breakdown is necessary ... the OP linked a news story ... you, not so much

News is not a scientific journal(which is what i linked)

the OP used wiki as a secondary source ... you, not so much

Not so much? So much of what?

most members here will balk at factcheck (unless you're one of the drones) ... that site and its info has been debunked numerous times

Most members balk at a lot of stuff. Fact check has its sources linked. Go ahead and debunk them.

the news source (fox) is only one of many but happens to be telling the story ... are you implying they're lying?

About an issue that they consider Left Wing? Never.

wiki is a universal source, yes, just not necessarily a complete or correct one (also proven many times)

Irrelevant. I linked a scientific journal.

if you have 'other' more reliable sources, please share but if you intend to dismiss and argue based on those sources alone, please find another playground.

I can spend all day quoting sources, but will that really change your mind?

my sources can be found in previous posts on previous threads, feel free to look in profile. as for listing them, i have before ... if you're interested, do you own homework.

The gall, saying i haven't done my homework when clearly I am presenting a valid counter argument to the OP. Who is seemingly quite willing to discuss the issue. Maybe you should join in?

besides, this isn't a thread about if GW is or is not, it is about the news story. care to keep it on topic ??

This makes no sense with the context of my post. I am on topic.

reply to post by jimbo999



Here, from the Royal Society itself...

Substantial Uncertainty

In view of the ongoing public and political debates about climate change, the aim of this
document is to summarise the current scientific evidence on climate change and its
drivers. It lays out clearly where the science is well established, where there is wide
consensus but continuing debate, and where there remains substantial uncertainty

www.probeinternational.org...

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by burntheships

 

Want the real story behind Ivar?

Here you go then:

www.desmogblog.com...

Big oil financed shill essentially...

No suprises then.

not understanding your implication here ... all science is backed by industry schills ... what makes his stance, his studies or his opinion industry sponsored ??
according to your link, he hasn't wavered on his opinion regardless of the funding received.
please clarify your point. what exactly is 'no surprise' ??
that he left the fold or that he accepted the funds?

He didn't "leave any fold" - because he was never a climatologist to begin with Don't try to cloud the issue. He and his pals are funded by Big Oil to promote their dis-information campaign to continue with Big Oil profits. Period. They don't want inconvenient facts - such as mad-made GW getting in the way. So they pay these two-bit science mercenaries to create as much confusion on the issue as they can...

Never wavered on his opinion? Of course not - as he's always been in the pockets of Big Oil!! lol!

reply to post by TsukiLunar


honor93 seems to take pleasure in splitting hairs and trying to mis-quote and purposely mis-understand very simple english sentences. Need I say more?

reply to post by jimbo999


Ah, I see....so your only inclined to acknowledge scientists that are
"climatologists" ?

I.E. of the religion of global warming...

"climatologists" = crooked politicians & religious fanatics.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/190a1b27dec8.jpg[/atsimg]

Al Gore and his poster boy status, religious hierarchy, and crooked politicians
who milk taxpayers for under the radar cap and trade schemes, and carbon tax.

Where are your sources?

reply to post by burntheships

Fox news is just a headline. I linked numerous other sources...that are only hours old.

That's fine, i will accept the source either way. Regarding the 'hours old' comment. Am i supposed to agree that the info that just came out is somehow invalidates GW?

Your link is from 2009. A lot has come to light since then.

Not sure what your implying here. There are plenty of factual sources that predate that, so this seems largely irrelevant.

And besides that, the short article you linked, which is mere politics, and not about Science...is really not going to support your idea that expert scientists still support the consensus of GW.

Are you sure about that? I could have sworn i saw some facts there too.

So in other words, ot representive of an expert scientific body.

I thought you didn't trust the scientific bodies?

Clear this up for me. What will you accept as sources?

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by burntheships

 

Fox news is just a headline. I linked numerous other sources...that are only hours old.

That's fine, i will accept the source either way. Regarding the 'hours old' comment. Am i supposed to agree that the info that just came out is somehow invalidates GW?

Your link is from 2009. A lot has come to light since then.

Not sure what your implying here. There are plenty of factual sources that predate that, so this seems largely irrelevant.

Not looking for sources that predate that...
If you want to challenge the fact that 1000 scientists, and still more now counting
and Nobel Prize winning at that challenge the falsified data that dominated the GW crowd for
years, I suggest you post current up to date sources...

reply to post by burntheships

Not looking for sources that predate that...

Not saying you were, but there are plenty of valid sources that predate 2009

If you want to challenge the fact that 1000 scientists, and still more now counting and Nobel Prize winning at that challenge the falsified data that dominated the GW crowd for years, I suggest you post current up to date sources...

Current up to date sources for what? That most scientist still think GW is real?

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

articles.cnn.com...:WORLD

This is the newest survey i can find regarding the amount of scientist who subscribe to global warming. Its relatively in line with what i posted before. So accept it or wait for another survey.

Right, back to the question that never gets answered, with atmospheric CO2 being less than one percent, just how can so little have so much effect on the rest of the atmosphere?

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by Honor93

 

There are plenty of sources that refute everything about this scientists' non-existent "expertise" on Global Warming. This story isn't about GW - it's about Big Oil trying to deny the truth to the public by parading it's paid GW "experts" before the Press with non-scientific stories designed to confuse people and prolong their own mega-profits for as long as humanly possible - while the world burns.

'Nuff said.

nuff said ?? i disagree.
you say there are plenty of sources but offer none.
this scientist (expert or not, he is still a scientist) disagrees with the prevailing public claim that GW is a man-made condition ... that hardly qualifies him as a schill.

not sure how you figure a story about the resignation of this scientist correlates with Big Oil denying truth
so, are you saying that you believe this 'contrived expert' is being paraded as some kind of bonus for the oil industry??
from one consumer to another, have you stopped or ceased all of your personal uses of oil ??

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

honor93 seems to take pleasure in splitting hairs and trying to mis-quote and purposely mis-understand very simple english sentences. Need I say more?

No, its fine. I understand quite well.

Originally posted by pikestaff
Right, back to the question that never gets answered, with atmospheric CO2 being less than one percent, just how can so little have so much effect on the rest of the atmosphere?

www.aip.org...

This may help.

"Global Warming" and "Climate Change" are both dubious from a statistical standpoint.

"Modern" meteorology has only been around for about the past 30 years (1980s). Prior to that, there was little in the way of global atmospheric temperature measurement.

Even then, there are many different temperatures one can measure - average surface, average cloud, air-at-altitude- etc.

Attempting to establish a "rising trend" across the given data set is difficult to do - as the figures are all over creation and your results are going to be highly dependent upon your methods.

Attempting to assign temperatures to the Earth's atmosphere millions of years ago in such a way as to be relevant to the +0.0x Celcius degree changes that are allegedly caused by man is simply laughable.

Anthropomorphic Climate Change is the penultimate fear-inducing weapon. Everything from inconvenient weather to famine can be attributed to our own technological choices. All we have to do to avoid certain destruction is buy certain products and vote yes on certain pieces of legislation. See how it works?

Then we get into research as a service industry. You come and pay me to do research, as a paying customer. Seeing as that's how I put food on the table and a roof over my head - I understand the need to satisfy the customer. However, as a scientist, I also like to keep my facts straight. Thus, I work my facts and figures out -accurate they may be- so that they paint a picture the customer will appreciate. I discard conflicting results or simply bury them in the data sets with dismissive remarks in the discussion (eh - it isn't really all that important).

The conclusion is the bread and butter of research as a service. It's where the most quotations come from and where many people skip to (they don't like graphs and tables full of figures that confound their intelligence). That is where you agree with the customer. It doesn't matter what your data substantiates - you agree (in the case of APG) that global climate change is a concern, reduction of emissions is a priority, and more research is critical (it always is - my job is to research... nothing says "ya'll come back now" like "I'll have something even better for you all next time!").

If you look at a number of research papers on controversial subjects - the conclusion completely disagrees with the data (and often, even the discussion of the data). It's science as a service, and it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

interesting, i just re-read all of your posts and not a single, current, 'scientific journal' reference in there ... care to point it out or post it again ?? pnas isn't current and 2009 was sooooome time ago in this field of study.

news, is where the story begins ... remember, this is about a resignation of a scientist

i know better than to reference or use factcheck ... i like real facts and they seldom have any.

so long as we agree that fox isn't lying about Iver's resignation, good
btw, i like swings, not wings

Irrelevant. I linked a scientific journal

once more, Current please ... yesterday's news is just that, irrelevant.

why would you want or need to change my mind ??
i've lived on this planet awhile, i don't depend on rhetoric, nature speaks much louder and clearer.

I am presenting a valid counter argument to the OP

not with those sources, you'd be mistaken.

i was addressing you directly as a courtesy but hey, since you seem to think your opinion is the only one that matters, march on dude.
but be careful, the name is Burn the Ships for a reason
and btw, discussing or arguing IF global warming is a man-made dilemma is on plenty of other threads ... it is not the topic of this one.
sorry BtS, sometimes tho ... i just wanna ...

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by burntheships

 

Want the real story behind Ivar?

Here you go then:

www.desmogblog.com...

Big oil financed shill essentially...

No suprises then.

not understanding your implication here ... all science is backed by industry schills ... what makes his stance, his studies or his opinion industry sponsored ??
according to your link, he hasn't wavered on his opinion regardless of the funding received.
please clarify your point. what exactly is 'no surprise' ??
that he left the fold or that he accepted the funds?

He didn't "leave any fold" - because he was never a climatologist to begin with

Don't try to cloud the issue. He and his pals are funded by Big Oil to promote their dis-information campaign to continue with Big Oil profits. Period. They don't want inconvenient facts - such as mad-made GW getting in the way. So they pay these two-bit science mercenaries to create as much confusion on the issue as they can...

Never wavered on his opinion? Of course not - as he's always been in the pockets of Big Oil!! lol!

edit on 15-9-2011 by jimbo999 because: (no reason given)

first, any scientist who resigns over propaganda they just can't swallow IS leaving the fold.
no requirement to be a 'climatologist' ... experts ??? my arse. students is more like it.

Big Oil doesn't even belong in this story ... that is my point.
why would big oil want to dis GW ??? it was their program to begin with and their propaganda you are buying.
big oil has no direct impact or influence on the exposure of the GW science fraud.
i'm guessing you're buying into it lock, stock and barrel with your last commentary ... what a shame.

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

honor93 seems to take pleasure in splitting hairs and trying to mis-quote and purposely mis-understand very simple english sentences. Need I say more?

uhem, i take pleasure in many things but here, it's usually hearty, healthy, banter.
tis a shame you have none to offer.
the personal attack really isn't necessary but my comprehension of your bs seems to irk you.
why is that?

reply to post by Honor93

interesting, i just re-read all of your posts and not a single, current, 'scientific journal' reference in there ... care to point it out or post it again ?? pnas isn't current and 2009 was sooooome time ago in this field of study.

Sorry, but you are wrong about that.

i know better than to reference or use factcheck ... i like real facts and they seldom have any.

So... debunk their sources.

so long as we agree that fox isn't lying about Iver's resignation, good btw, i like swings, not wings

?

once more, Current please ... yesterday's news is just that, irrelevant.

Thats ridiculous. Why would it be irrelevant?

why would you want or need to change my mind ?? i've lived on this planet awhile, i don't depend on rhetoric, nature speaks much louder and clearer.

Indeed, nature has spoken. You seem to be not listening though...

not with those sources, you'd be mistaken.

again, they are valid sources. Prove they are not.

i was addressing you directly as a courtesy but hey, since you seem to think your opinion is the only one that matters, march on dude.

Opinion? My opinion is in my first post. Everything else i have backed up and i havent even directly commented on whether or not i think global warming is true. So...what the hell?

but be careful, the name is Burn the Ships for a reason

Is he a pirate? I am not afraid.

and btw, discussing or arguing IF global warming is a man-made dilemma is on plenty of other threads ... it is not the topic of this one.

I am sorry you feel that way, but let the OP deal with it. If he wants to stick with the narrow original topic, that is up to him, not you. Edit: This is still on topic, anyway. I enjoy discussing issues like this and so does the OP. We are building our cases against each other while you have added a big fat zero to the discussion.