Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Famous Physicists Speak About Climate Change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Famous Physicists Speak About Climate Change

    These famous physicists, myself, and many other scientists I know, are all in agreement with the fundamental principles of climate science and that there propaganda war that is being waged on the world. Like all propaganda, it is based on misrepresentations to engender fear of some created enemy.

    The Sun dominates our climate far beyond all other effects combined. In the atmosphere, water is such a large effect that, CO2 is in the noise of the data. You can see water in solid (ice), liquid, and gas (clouds) forms. CO2 is invisible. The difference between a desert and a jungle is water. There is water ice at the poles, no CO2 ice. The effects of all CO2 (not just the tiny amount humans create) can't be measured above the background noise of Water and Solar variations.

    WARNING: These videos are of actual scientists speaking actual facts. It takes them more than 3 minutes to state all of their observations, so if you are an average Millennial, you will probably be attacked by ADD or Cognitive Dissonance before hearing much of what these genius physicists have to say.

    "Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics trashes the global warming/climate change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is "Dead Wrong".
    This was the 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates."

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/i...st-a-religion/

    This guy "invented" the "Dyson Sphere".
    Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs
    Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

  • #2
    Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
    These famous physicists, myself, and many other scientists I know, are all in agreement with the fundamental principles of climate science and that there propaganda war that is being waged on the world. Like all propaganda, it is based on misrepresentations to engender fear of some created enemy.

    The Sun dominates our climate far beyond all other effects combined. In the atmosphere, water is such a large effect that, CO2 is in the noise of the data. You can see water in solid (ice), liquid, and gas (clouds) forms. CO2 is invisible. The difference between a desert and a jungle is water. There is water ice at the poles, no CO2 ice. The effects of all CO2 (not just the tiny amount humans create) can't be measured above the background noise of Water and Solar variations.

    WARNING: These videos are of actual scientists speaking actual facts. It takes them more than 3 minutes to state all of their observations, so if you are an average Millennial, you will probably be attacked by ADD or Cognitive Dissonance before hearing much of what these genius physicists have to say.

    "Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics trashes the global warming/climate change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is "Dead Wrong".
    This was the 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates."

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/i...st-a-religion/

    This guy "invented" the "Dyson Sphere".
    Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs
    Do you watch your links? Dyson states AGW is real, he simply states that the models are only partially correct, and too much is still to be discovered .

    My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.
    https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dys...f07_index.html

    I personally find Freeman Dysons POV more than acceptable .

    OTOH Ivar Glaever is funded directly and indirectly by the Tobacco industry .
    https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/01/0...limate-deniers

    I wasted 32 mins of my life watching his vid, nothing new except cherry picked data, ie what he himself calls pseudo science. Don't waste your time watching the first link .
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
      Do you watch your links? Dyson states AGW is real, he simply states that the models are only partially correct, and too much is still to be discovered .

      https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dys...f07_index.html

      I personally find Freeman Dysons POV more than acceptable .

      OTOH Ivar Glaever is funded directly and indirectly by the Tobacco industry .
      https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/01/0...limate-deniers

      I wasted 32 mins of my life watching his vid, nothing new except cherry picked data, ie what he himself calls pseudo science. Don't waste your time watching the first link .
      Whereas I doubt Gorebal Warming is a major component of the climate, although I have no doubt we have an effect on it.

      But, claiming that CO2 is the driver, and it and it alone needs massive government intervention and control on technology and economies is absolute rubbish. This is akin to the argument the same sort of "scientists" made about CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer at the South Pole about 50 years ago. They claimed at the time that if we banned CFC's the hole would close and everything would be right with the world.
      Well, CFC's got banned, it's been as long as it was supposed to take for the hole to disappear, and it's still there and still the same size. The "scientists" were completely wrong. But, it sure drove the cost of air conditioning and many other processes up substantially.

      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. This time around those scientists will have to come up with more than some [email protected]$$ed computer models for me to buy what they're shilling.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
        Do you watch your links? Dyson states AGW is real, he simply states that the models are only partially correct, and too much is still to be discovered .



        https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dys...f07_index.html

        I personally find Freeman Dysons POV more than acceptable .

        OTOH Ivar Glaever is funded directly and indirectly by the Tobacco industry .
        https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/01/0...limate-deniers

        I wasted 32 mins of my life watching his vid, nothing new except cherry picked data, ie what he himself calls pseudo science. Don't waste your time watching the first link .
        Don't waste time if you believe in the religion of ACC/AGW?

        Meanwhile the pro-ACC/AGW "experts" are funded by those looking for scams and profits from their psuedoscience.

        0.04%(CO2) of Dry atmosphere retarding passage of energy on two narrow bands of the IR spectrum doesn't compute as the "primary driver" some suggest for ACC/AGW. Heck the biosphere needs about 0.03 of that 0.04 to sustain all Flora~plant life and that's a rather slim margin of excess to be messin' with. Nature is still the main driver of "Climate Change".
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          Whereas I doubt Gorebal Warming is a major component of the climate, although I have no doubt we have an effect on it.

          But, claiming that CO2 is the driver, and it and it alone needs massive government intervention and control on technology and economies is absolute rubbish. This is akin to the argument the same sort of "scientists" made about CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer at the South Pole about 50 years ago. They claimed at the time that if we banned CFC's the hole would close and everything would be right with the world.
          Well, CFC's got banned, it's been as long as it was supposed to take for the hole to disappear, and it's still there and still the same size. The "scientists" were completely wrong. But, it sure drove the cost of air conditioning and many other processes up substantially.

          Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. This time around those scientists will have to come up with more than some [email protected]$$ed computer models for me to buy what they're shilling.
          Banning CFC's worked.

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...nt-matter.html
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            Banning CFC's worked.
            Really? Then why do we still have "global warming"?

            And when will people realize that we cannot change the climatic patterns of a an entire world no matter what we do or don't do? We're only passengers on this planet.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
              I think I'll wait on this one. A one time occurrence is hardly a trend or data worthy.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                ...This is akin to the argument the same sort of "scientists" made about CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer at the South Pole about 50 years ago. They claimed at the time that if we banned CFC's the hole would close and everything would be right with the world.
                ...
                How about a bit of personal history. First recall that the CO2 death bomb and CFC death bomb both came in the mid 1980's. Nobody has died yet...

                At the time I was a student at one of few universities that offers Ph.D.s in Atmospheric Physics. Not only did they dismiss the CO2 warming theories but for CFC's it gets more interesting.

                What I was told, (yes, hearsay but from reliable sources and can likely be verified) is that there was a grant competition between scientists to make observations in Antarctica regarding the "Ozone Hole" (which is a by product of the Solar Wind interacting with the upper atmosphere). The Atmospheric Physicists had already predict the Ozone Hole (never been observed before then) many years before based on the Earth's magnetic field, Solar Wind, "The Atmosphere" and other scientific reasons.

                However, a group of Chemists, got the Grant and sent a few balloons in the the atmosphere and "discovered" the Ozone Hole. And "of course" the explanation was a Chemical reason (despite the cold temperatures and low densities in the upper atmosphere which make reactions unlikely) and that would be CFCs, the evil demon being released by humanity.

                Now, here's the kicker!


                The reason the Ozone Hole is a problem is that Ozone protects us from UV radiation.

                "True, but irrelevant." Ozone is 0.04 ppm of the atmosphere. WATER is 50,000 ppm of the atmosphere. Water is just as good at absorbing UV as Ozone.

                That means H2O absorbs over a MILLION times the UV that Ozone absorbs!!!!


                We can not begin to measure the difference between Ozone, and No Ozone to that accuracy, with all our modern science!!! Never mind the fact that NOBODY LIVES at the South Pole, so whatever tiny benefit Ozone had was meaningless to 99.99999% of humanity.

                However, who would think to question the [propaganda] "experts"...
                Last edited by Pirate-Drakk; 08 Sep 17, 01:47.
                Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Really? Then why do we still have "global warming"?

                  And when will people realize that we cannot change the climatic patterns of a an entire world no matter what we do or don't do? We're only passengers on this planet.
                  You should not show your ignorance so publicly - CFCs had nothing to do with global warming but everything to do with depleting the ozone layer that protects us all from undue exposure to UV and subsequent skin cancers etc etc. Since banning CVs the expanding hole in the Ozone layer has started to close.

                  Oh and by the way stupid passengers have sunk many a boat
                  Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                  Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Anti-AGW is my second favorite conspiracy theory.
                    Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
                    Hyperwar, Whats New
                    World War II Resources
                    The best place in the world to "work".

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sorry if I seem to have lost track of what this thread is all about, but I gather scientists are arguing among themselves about whether global warming is happening or not?
                      A simple "global warming" google search will throw up plenty of charts like the two below which indicate dear old mother earth IS warming up, and that the human race is to blame, or am I missing something?




                      https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/...off-the-scale/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
                        Sorry if I seem to have lost track of what this thread is all about, but I gather scientists are arguing among themselves about whether global warming is happening or not?
                        A simple "global warming" google search will throw up plenty of charts like the two below which indicate dear old mother earth IS warming up, and that the human race is to blame, or am I missing something?




                        https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/...off-the-scale/
                        You're missing something.

                        Let's start with the CO2 issue...

                        NASA, the NOAA, et. al., who up to now have been largely in the human produced CO2 is the problem boat are now saying contrails made by jet aircraft may be producing 10 to 20% of the warming.

                        https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley...04/04-140.html

                        NASA scientists have found that cirrus clouds, formed by contrails from aircraft engine exhaust, are capable of increasing average surface temperatures enough to account for a warming trend in the United States that occurred between 1975 and 1994.
                        "This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975, but it is important to acknowledge contrails would add to and not replace any greenhouse gas effect," said Patrick Minnis, senior research scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. The study was published April 15 in the Journal of Climate. "During the same period, warming occurred in many other areas where cirrus coverage decreased or remained steady," he added.
                        Of course, they have to weasel word in CO2 because that's the religious belief of this particular cult.

                        This issue was completely being ignored as a potential climate changer up until 9/11 and the NOAA got data on the US via satellite when no aircraft were flying. All of a sudden, it became an issue as the data showed water vapor from contrails (a much better greenhouse gas) was causing heat retention.

                        What else do scientists not know about the atmosphere and various effects on it? What else have they overlooked?

                        Thus, anthropogenic climate change is a poorly understood issue in my view and given the sloppy results of past world climate / atmosphere efforts by scientists I'm not willing to wreck the world's economy or standard of living on their claims.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          I think I'll wait on this one. A one time occurrence is hardly a trend or data worthy.
                          If people pollute a pond by dumping rubbish in it, and then dumping gets banned, the pollution does not suddenly disappear. The crap is still there. With cfc's it has taken decades to even make a dent in dealing with the problem.

                          The same is true with any environment. It takes the Earth a long time, in human terms, to clean itself. Plastics are an obvious concern.

                          My concern is about looking after my descendants. The fact that many here are more concerned with NOW than the future could be a concern.
                          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                            If people pollute a pond by dumping rubbish in it, and then dumping gets banned, the pollution does not suddenly disappear. The crap is still there. With cfc's it has taken decades to even make a dent in dealing with the problem.

                            The same is true with any environment. It takes the Earth a long time, in human terms, to clean itself. Plastics are an obvious concern.

                            My concern is about looking after my descendants. The fact that many here are more concerned with NOW than the future could be a concern.
                            The problem with cfc's is they persist for a long time after being released and the ozone once destroyed takes a long time to be replaced by natural processes. Stopping pollution does not magically change the impact it has already had. When leaded petrol was withdrawn all those brain damaged kids didn't suddenly get better. Many of those who selfishly want to go on polluting take a very childish approach and think that making up silly names for those who object will make it all go away - They should go back to the kindergarten playground.
                            Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                            Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              If people pollute a pond by dumping rubbish in it, and then dumping gets banned, the pollution does not suddenly disappear. The crap is still there. With cfc's it has taken decades to even make a dent in dealing with the problem.

                              The same is true with any environment. It takes the Earth a long time, in human terms, to clean itself. Plastics are an obvious concern.

                              My concern is about looking after my descendants. The fact that many here are more concerned with NOW than the future could be a concern.
                              Let's revisit this in say 20 years. I'm betting the hole in the ozone will still be there, will still be about the same size, and there will still be people saying we just need to wait longer because the predictions were wrong but the science was right...

                              It's the same with Gorebal Warming. The IPCC for example has made predictions about the effects of climate change and they've been nearly 100% wrong. Even a good psychic could get better odds than that on predictions...

                              When outcomes match predictions at greater than 50% (random chance) maybe I'll start paying attention. But the predictions and modelling to date haven't come close to what actually has been the climate.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X