Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Famous Physicists Speak About Climate Change

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

  • #46
    Yet another Nobel Laureate speaks out with some facts about the bad science behind AGW.
    All the same points, no explanation for past climate change, climate change didn't start in 1850, water dominates the planets weather, and other important facts...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FnWFlDvxE

    The idiotic questions at the end show that at least some of the audience didn't understand a word of what was spoken...
     
    Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

    Comment


    • #47
      It's a shame you have to be almost retired to speak out.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #48
        My position has never changed, it's to complicated for the current state of science. It is unlikely that a model can be constructed that will make forecasts accurate enough to make measured changes to our economic policies. More importantly the environmental movement is anti human in that the logical extension of the philosophy is that humans must be eliminated to eliminate their impact on the environment. To illustrate the point it's agriculture not the industrial revolution that has most significantly alter the environment for other species. The industrial revolution, especially the use of fossil fuels to produce fertilizer, that has left even a few natural areas uncultivated under the pressure of increasing populations.

        More importantly the immediate threat is cooling not warming. The industrialized world has only a 6 month food reserve that is threatened by "a year without a summer" something that is not theoretical but has happened in historical memory. In 1816 North America and Europe experienced "the year without a summer" leading to failed crops and near-famine conditions. It is likely that because of the concentration of people in cities and the near extinction of and distribution of natural reserves combined with higher population densities that near famine would mean totally social chaos. The total lack of resources dedicated to studying the natural climate is nearly criminal considering how much has been spent on theoretical warming. The lessen is never give people a route to power and resources they have not earned.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
          Yet another Nobel Laureate speaks out with some facts about the bad science behind AGW.
          All the same points, no explanation for past climate change, climate change didn't start in 1850, water dominates the planets weather, and other important facts...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FnWFlDvxE

          The idiotic questions at the end show that at least some of the audience didn't understand a word of what was spoken...
          The same scientist that thinks astrology is real?

          As a Capricorn, I thought he would know better .
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

            The same scientist that thinks astrology is real?

            As a Capricorn, I thought he would know better .
            You know Newton was kind of a nutter? You have to be very careful to separate the message from the messenger especially in science.

            That really isn't important because it is becoming clear that the over estimation of warming was intentional. You simply can't be expected to accept models that have to be recalibrated because the researchers missed an important input. Every time the models are off we are given another reason why it doesn't matter and told they really weren't. If you can't predict where to look for the warming your ignorance of the system becomes apparent.

            I remember right before the Paris Climate Accords they switched from buoy data to ship engine data. Making transparent that politics were driving the science not the other way around.

            It could be that the alarmist are right, I doubt that anyone here has enough data or expertise to know. That said I will not support the liars and bureaucratic careerists that are so transparently willing to fudge data for political advantage. They should mostly be fired and replaced by more objective individuals.
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

              You know Newton was kind of a nutter? You have to be very careful to separate the message from the messenger especially in science.

              That really isn't important because it is becoming clear that the over estimation of warming was intentional. You simply can't be expected to accept models that have to be recalibrated because the researchers missed an important input. Every time the models are off we are given another reason why it doesn't matter and told they really weren't. If you can't predict where to look for the warming your ignorance of the system becomes apparent.

              I remember right before the Paris Climate Accords they switched from buoy data to ship engine data. Making transparent that politics were driving the science not the other way around.

              It could be that the alarmist are right, I doubt that anyone here has enough data or expertise to know. That said I will not support the liars and bureaucratic careerists that are so transparently willing to fudge data for political advantage. They should mostly be fired and replaced by more objective individuals.
              Considering Newton was living in a different age, and he actually contributed more to science than any other individual, he can be more than forgiven.

              YOU need to provide evidence that over estimation of warming was intentional, when you post such an opinion.
              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                YOU need to provide evidence that over estimation of warming was intentional, when you post such an opinion.
                Consider this FACT. The $$$$ from the "Carbon Tax" on CO2 emissions is not slated for research or technology to reduce CO2 emissions.

                This tax is punitive, and solves nothing.



                Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post

                  Consider this FACT. The $$$$ from the "Carbon Tax" on CO2 emissions is not slated for research or technology to reduce CO2 emissions.

                  This tax is punitive, and solves nothing.


                  How much tax are we talking about?
                  How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                    How much tax are we talking about?
                    "More than $28.3 billion in government “carbon revenues” are currently collected each year in 40 countries and another 16 states or provinces around the world."
                    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01421516302531

                    Less than 30% is used for "renewable energy"...
                    Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X