Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Famous Physicists Speak About Climate Change

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

  • Pirate-Drakk
    replied
    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"...

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Pirate-Drakk
    replied
    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.



    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    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 .

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    It's a shame you have to be almost retired to speak out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pirate-Drakk
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Starving kids in Africa... Here's the answer...

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Here's an interesting variant on "Anthropogenic Climate Change", which some might assign to "Conspiracy Theory", but there is some foundation and substance here, even if not to the extent this link claims. Main point here is that we humans may not know enough to try fixing what isn't broken or changing systems for suppossed improvement.

    Geoengineering Affects You, Your Environment, and Your Loved Ones

    Geoengineering Watch
    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
    Another variant;
    Scientists 'able to CONTROL the weather using LASERS'

    SCIENTISTS have discovered a bizarre way to potentially control the weather using laser beams and could potentially beat the threat of droughts, it has been revealed.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/scienc...oud-california

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    The BBC produced a program concerning 'Global Dimming' after 9.11, as it appeared the planet suddenly warmed up due to a cut in flights.

    However, the BBC is apparently a Fake News outlet, at least according to one President.
    A few days' weather variation does not a climate trend make or prove.

    Like most other "news sources", the BBC has an agenda and a bias, which is what is meant when one refers to such as "fake".

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Poor Old Spike View Post
    Interstingly Attenborough says in this interview that unless humans act, "the natural world will do something" but I'm not sure what he means-


    If he really believes what he said, he should have removed himself from the gene-pool and food chain decades ago. Just another barmy liberal hypocite wasting human skin here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Poor Old Spike
    replied
    Interstingly Attenborough says in this interview that unless humans act, "the natural world will do something" but I'm not sure what he means-


    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
    Yah, Really!


    Actually, "chem" trails which are trails of WATER VAPOR (yes, water is a chemical...) actually contribute to Cooling the planet.

    High altitude clouds reflect light away from the Earth during the day, and most "chem-trails" are generated at high altitude on the day-light side of the planet. At night, they do little to contain heat radiating from the surface, and soon dissipate anyway, or we would live in a world of constant high level overcast clouds. We don't.

    Note that the CO2 (1/2 or less of the water exhaust) that goes with those chem-trails are already "taxed" and are completely invisible, while the WATER effect is highly visible...both to the naked eye and the planet.


    There is, however, some small amount of actual pollution generated by those jet engines, as they are not 100% efficient.

    What is the price of humanity?
    The BBC produced a program concerning 'Global Dimming' after 9.11, as it appeared the planet suddenly warmed up due to a cut in flights.

    However, the BBC is apparently a Fake News outlet, at least according to one President.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X