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

  • 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:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X