#751
Death knell for AGW
#752
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010
Another eminent scientist sees the light.
Global warming 'the most successful pseudoscientific fraud ever': US physicist - Yahoo! India News
Global warming 'the most successful pseudoscientific fraud ever': US physicist - Yahoo! India News
#753
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by Walter
Another eminent scientist sees the light.
Global warming 'the most successful pseudoscientific fraud ever': US physicist - Yahoo! India News
Here is a link to the complete letter, you ought to give it a read Walter
You can, and should, read the entire text of Prof. Lewis’s letter by following the link here.
#754
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010
He doesn't mention anything to discredit AGW. It was mostly complaining of about the bureaucracy of the American Physical Society. He was upset that his view wasn't being put forth so he tried to get a petition going for open discussion. That failed, and so now he's wagging his tail and using climategate of all things to back up his claims. Someone should let him know that that ship sailed.
Sucks for him.
But if he was a true scientist, and didn't care about the bureaucracy, he would post his 'science' on an open forum. They're free, and if he has a credible argument, I would like to hear it. But the "I hate my employer" spiel doesn't really do much for his case. Hopefully, now that he is free from their cold-hearted clutch, he can give us some insight into why the science of AGW is a sham, other than complaining about the obvious bureaucracy that corrupts every industry.
I can complain about Fox News and republican oil bureaucrats until the cows come home. But a better argument is the scientific claim that anthropogenic factors are the strongest influence on climate change right now. And that's backed by peer-reviewed journals with logical conclusions. If he is a scientist, then he will argue the science, not the politics.
Sucks for him.
But if he was a true scientist, and didn't care about the bureaucracy, he would post his 'science' on an open forum. They're free, and if he has a credible argument, I would like to hear it. But the "I hate my employer" spiel doesn't really do much for his case. Hopefully, now that he is free from their cold-hearted clutch, he can give us some insight into why the science of AGW is a sham, other than complaining about the obvious bureaucracy that corrupts every industry.
I can complain about Fox News and republican oil bureaucrats until the cows come home. But a better argument is the scientific claim that anthropogenic factors are the strongest influence on climate change right now. And that's backed by peer-reviewed journals with logical conclusions. If he is a scientist, then he will argue the science, not the politics.
#755
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan
Read it before I posted.Here is a link to the complete letter, you ought to give it a read Walter
You can, and should, read the entire text of Prof. Lewis’s letter by following the link here.
#756
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss
He's gone Emeritus. And that's backed by peer-reviewed journals with logical conclusions. If he is a scientist, then he will argue the science, not the politics.
Dr. Lewis deserves some respect for work he has done, but not for his opinion on climate science.
Want to know what's really ironic? Oh it's damned good irony too. Lewis rants in his letter about climategate and the fraud. If you remember your climategate mythology, we were supposed to be suspicious, because CRU cannot account for historical documents. With that, an interview Hal Lewis gave to the American Institute of Physics:
Dr. Aaserud:I mean, that's pretty rich don't you think? How many researchers have been involved in collecting temperature data in the UK? How many formats has the data gone through? Yet, it's fraud when data cannot be accounted for? So...don't cite any papers by Lewis? Should we still respect him for the work he did?
Your papers — correspondence, notes, manuscripts, things of that sort — what's the status of those? That's another thing we're interested in.
Dr. Lewis:
Yes. I really don't have them, you know. I've long since either lost in moving or discarded everything that I had. So I have no papers around from JASON, if that's what you mean.
Aaserud:
No, generally — both JASON and generally speaking.
Lewis:
There are lots of things, but they're scattered in a complicated way. Generally speaking, I throw things away after a few years, so the only things I have are the things that have accumulated over the last few years and are relevant to the things I'm actually doing these days.
Unbelievable. Well, really nothing is unbelievable anymore from the deniers...
#757
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010
In my opinion it is most likely that Global Warming is real, but that its causes are mainly natural. Critics will now probably say that I am just of this opinion because it is convenient to blame it on the earth instead of blaming it on humans(including myself).
A case could be made that I do indeed enjoy incandescent light bulbs over fluorescent light bulbs. But aside from that it is vice versa – it is convenient to think that the earth can be so easily reinvigorated/saved like the anthropogenic global warming proponents proclaim. Just raise taxes, mandate carbon trading, drive smaller businesses out of work with more bureaucracy, and everything will be fine? Isn’t it much more uncomfortable to believe that you have no real control over your destiny in this regard? That your life is dependent on the uncontrollable forces of nature? Isn’t this very inconvenient?
It makes ‘sense’ in a criminal way that international bankers want to blindly believe in man-made global warming. They want to make money with their ETS(Emissions Trading Scheme). Likewise, politicians want to raise taxes and increase bureaucracy to have more money and more power at their disposal. But why do so many ordinary citizens unquestioningly support the carbon dogma?
Here we have an important figure of the most important Astronomical Observatory in Russia explain that both Mars and Earth are heating up due to increased solar irradiance. Yet this is hardly ever discussed in the mainstream. Why? Because there is no power to be gained? No money to be made? Or are the rich and powerful afraid that this would cause panic:
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
“In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.”
Aside from the sun, what is probably another huge contributor to global warming, is the earth itself! Many ice sheets are melting primarily because of geothermal activity! Also check the brilliant analogy “heating a pot of water on a stove instead of heating the air around the pot of water to get the pot of water boiling” near the end of this post:
Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation' - Telegraph
“Professor Cliff Ollier, another geologist from the University of Western Australia, also said the environmental lobby have got it wrong on ice caps. He said the melting of ice sheets is caused by geothermal activity rather than global surface temperatures.”
Last but not least I will present a quotation from an article by Amitakh Stanford, I got the inspiration to research and write this post because of this. I had never heard this perspective in the media clearly presented like that:
Keluar #8 - Up, Up and Away In the Hot-Air ETS
“My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.
It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.
In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.
The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!
It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being “educated” to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they “educated” ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?”
A case could be made that I do indeed enjoy incandescent light bulbs over fluorescent light bulbs. But aside from that it is vice versa – it is convenient to think that the earth can be so easily reinvigorated/saved like the anthropogenic global warming proponents proclaim. Just raise taxes, mandate carbon trading, drive smaller businesses out of work with more bureaucracy, and everything will be fine? Isn’t it much more uncomfortable to believe that you have no real control over your destiny in this regard? That your life is dependent on the uncontrollable forces of nature? Isn’t this very inconvenient?
It makes ‘sense’ in a criminal way that international bankers want to blindly believe in man-made global warming. They want to make money with their ETS(Emissions Trading Scheme). Likewise, politicians want to raise taxes and increase bureaucracy to have more money and more power at their disposal. But why do so many ordinary citizens unquestioningly support the carbon dogma?
Here we have an important figure of the most important Astronomical Observatory in Russia explain that both Mars and Earth are heating up due to increased solar irradiance. Yet this is hardly ever discussed in the mainstream. Why? Because there is no power to be gained? No money to be made? Or are the rich and powerful afraid that this would cause panic:
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
“In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.”
Aside from the sun, what is probably another huge contributor to global warming, is the earth itself! Many ice sheets are melting primarily because of geothermal activity! Also check the brilliant analogy “heating a pot of water on a stove instead of heating the air around the pot of water to get the pot of water boiling” near the end of this post:
Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation' - Telegraph
“Professor Cliff Ollier, another geologist from the University of Western Australia, also said the environmental lobby have got it wrong on ice caps. He said the melting of ice sheets is caused by geothermal activity rather than global surface temperatures.”
Last but not least I will present a quotation from an article by Amitakh Stanford, I got the inspiration to research and write this post because of this. I had never heard this perspective in the media clearly presented like that:
Keluar #8 - Up, Up and Away In the Hot-Air ETS
“My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.
It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.
In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.
The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!
It is understandable why scientists do this. Their faith in fellow scientists is so strong that they firmly believe that global warming can be abated by substantially reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Whilst the reduction of carbon emissions will benefit the planet by assisting in cleaning up the air, it will not solve the problem of global warming. Scientists should have enough understanding to realize that there is very little that can be done about geothermal activities that are heating up the ground and the streams. Rather than alert people to the impending catastrophes from volcanoes and earthquakes, the people are being “educated” to believe that if they reduce carbon emissions, then the Earth will cool and become safe again. So, are the scientists who propose the carbon notion really looking out for the future of the planet? Or are they “educated” ostriches with their heads in the sand? Why are the brainwashed ostriches trying to make everyone else get sand in their hair?”
#758
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010
In my opinion, when someone states their opinion that our current climate change is brought about mostly by natural factors, and then moves right into the costs and policies they find objectionable, it's pretty clear to me that their opinion isn't being guided by anything like evidence...people often deny reality when the solution to a problem is unpalatable. It's basic human psychology.
And back on the physicists:
And back on the physicists:
#759
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010
What colour is the sky in your world? Mine was a nice blue this AM but is now white from aircraft.
#760
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by petros
Changes daily, sometimes hourly. It's grey right now.What colour is the sky in your world?
#761
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington
I get 330 days per year that have no real clouds until the aircraft ruin the day. Do you look up much?Changes daily, sometimes hourly. It's grey right now.
#762
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by petros
No, I'm indoors far more often than I would prefer.Do you look up much?
#763
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington
You wouldn't like what you see. You might even begin to piece two and two together.No, I'm indoors far more often than I would prefer.
#764
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by petros
You're jumping the gun. Just because I don't look up much, doesn't mean that I don't look up at all. During my leisure time I do look up often, though leisure time is far outweighed by working time.You wouldn't like what you see. You might even begin to piece two and two together.
#765
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington
No, I'm indoors far more often than I would prefer.
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington
I luckily work outdoors and these parts you don't need to look up to see the sky. If you were too see my skies then your trust in the what you are told would falter in a hurry. I know what I see and when what I see isn't included in the data sets, I have to stop and say;"WTF, This is Bull****!?"You're jumping the gun. Just because I don't look up much, doesn't mean that I don't look up at all. During my leisure time I do look up often, though leisure time is far outweighed by working time.
If you think I'm bull****ting I'll gladly set up my camera and take a pic every 15mins and you can watch my blue sky go white from aircraft too.
#766
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by petros
I lived on the Prairies...what exactly is it you think that I think, and that you think would shake the trust that you think I have in what you think I think?I luckily work outdoors and these parts you don't need to look up to see the sky. If you were too see my skies then your trust in the what you are told would falter in a hurry.
Quote:
Maybe you're looking in the wrong data sets...if you weren't so ubiquitously vague...well this conversation might actually go somewhere.I know what I see and when what I see isn't included in the data sets, I have to stop and say;"WTF, This is Bull****!?"
Quote:
Which data set where you hoping to find measures of sky colour in???If you think I'm bull****ting I'll gladly set up my camera and take a pic every 15mins and you can watch my blue sky go white from aircraft too.
#767
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington
I posted some stuff from NASA and how they aren't happy the IPCC doesn't seperate natural cirus cloud formation from the ones made by aircraft. I lived on the Prairies...what exactly is it you think that I think, and that you think would shake the trust that you think I have in what you think I think?
Maybe you're looking in the wrong data sets...if you weren't so ubiquitously vague...well this conversation might actually go somewhere.
Which data set where you hoping to find measures of sky colour in???
Too bad you flipped it off.
#768
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 13th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by petros
Ahh, because that was clear from the five posts leading up to this...sorry, but I don't have an encyclopedic memory of every post made by every poster in every thread that I've ever posted to.I posted some stuff from NASA and how they aren't happy the IPCC doesn't seperate natural cirus cloud formation from the ones made by aircraft.
Too bad you flipped it off.
#769
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 14th, 2010
So let me get this straight petros.
In a thread about the death knell for AGW you post something that is AGW?
Interesting.
In a thread about the death knell for AGW you post something that is AGW?
Interesting.
#770
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 14th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by Avro
Yes it is interesting how IPCC has no classification for CONTROLABLE man made cirus cloud formations to distinguish from the natural. So let me get this straight petros.
In a thread about the death knell for AGW you post something that is AGW?
Interesting.
NASA and NOAA have claimed that these CONTROLABLE man made cirus formations need to be catalogued in the IPCC formula and researched far more seriously as they are the source of 40% of the atmospheric vapour.
What have you gleaned from this interesting fact?
#771
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 14th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by petros
Nothing new other than you think warming is attributed to an anthropogenic forcing.Yes it is interesting how IPCC has no classification for CONTROLABLE man made cirus cloud formations to distinguish from the natural.
NASA and NOAA have claimed that these CONTROLABLE man made cirus formations need to be catalogued in the IPCC formula and researched far more seriously as they are the source of 40% of the atmospheric vapour.
What have you gleaned from this interesting fact?
#772
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 15th, 2010
So easy a child gets it.
#!
YouTube - Tabletop Global Warming
#773
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 15th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by Avro
So easy a child gets it.
#!YouTube - Tabletop Global Warming
Youtube Science
#774
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 15th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss
Youtube Science
Must be fake then.
#775
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 15th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by Avro
Shush Batman. I'm supposed to be Robin.Must be fake then.
#776
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 15th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss
Shush Batman. I'm supposed to be Robin.
#777
Re: Death knell for AGW
Oct 15th, 2010Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss
So simple that any moron who can drive a car or bake cookies should be capable of replicating the experimental design.Youtube Science
#778
Re: Death knell for AGW
Dec 4th, 2010
Another scathing article about the fraudulent science of AGW.
#779
Re: Death knell for AGW
Dec 4th, 2010
I'm sorry, what were you saying about corruption?
...
WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord | Environment | The Guardian
Seeking negotiating chips, the US state department sent a secret cable on 31 July 2009 seeking human intelligence from UN diplomats across a range of issues, including climate change. The request originated with the CIA. As well as countries' negotiating positions for Copenhagen, diplomats were asked to provide evidence of UN environmental "treaty circumvention" and deals between nations.
But intelligence gathering was not just one way. On 19 June 2009, the state department sent a cable detailing a "spear phishing" attack on the office of the US climate change envoy, Todd Stern, while talks with China on emissions took place in Beijing. Five people received emails, personalised to look as though they came from the National Journal. An attached file contained malicious code that would give complete control of the recipient's computer to a hacker. While the attack was unsuccessful, the department's cyber threat analysis division noted: "It is probable intrusion attempts such as this will persist."
The Beijing talks failed to lead to a global deal at Copenhagen. The US, the world's biggest historical polluter and long isolated as a climate pariah, now had something to cling to. The Copenhagen accord, hammered out in the dying hours but not adopted into the UN process, offered to solve many of the US's problems.
The accord turns the UN's top-down, unanimous approach upside down, with each nation choosing palatable targets for greenhouse gas cuts. It presents a far easier way to bind in China and other rapidly growing countries than the UN process. But the accord cannot guarantee the global greenhouse gas cuts needed to avoid dangerous warming. Furthermore, it threatens to circumvent the UN's negotiations on extending the Kyoto protocol, in which rich nations have binding obligations.
...
WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord | Environment | The Guardian
Seeking negotiating chips, the US state department sent a secret cable on 31 July 2009 seeking human intelligence from UN diplomats across a range of issues, including climate change. The request originated with the CIA. As well as countries' negotiating positions for Copenhagen, diplomats were asked to provide evidence of UN environmental "treaty circumvention" and deals between nations.
But intelligence gathering was not just one way. On 19 June 2009, the state department sent a cable detailing a "spear phishing" attack on the office of the US climate change envoy, Todd Stern, while talks with China on emissions took place in Beijing. Five people received emails, personalised to look as though they came from the National Journal. An attached file contained malicious code that would give complete control of the recipient's computer to a hacker. While the attack was unsuccessful, the department's cyber threat analysis division noted: "It is probable intrusion attempts such as this will persist."
The Beijing talks failed to lead to a global deal at Copenhagen. The US, the world's biggest historical polluter and long isolated as a climate pariah, now had something to cling to. The Copenhagen accord, hammered out in the dying hours but not adopted into the UN process, offered to solve many of the US's problems.
The accord turns the UN's top-down, unanimous approach upside down, with each nation choosing palatable targets for greenhouse gas cuts. It presents a far easier way to bind in China and other rapidly growing countries than the UN process. But the accord cannot guarantee the global greenhouse gas cuts needed to avoid dangerous warming. Furthermore, it threatens to circumvent the UN's negotiations on extending the Kyoto protocol, in which rich nations have binding obligations.
#780
Re: Death knell for AGW
Dec 4th, 2010
For 13 years, the U.S. has refused to join the rest of the industrialized world in the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 add-on to the climate treaty that mandates modest emissions reductions by richer nations. The U.S. complained that it would hurt its economy and that Kyoto should have mandated actions as well by such emerging economies as China and India.
I have two questions:
Last time I checked China, India and the United States are the industrialized world. Are there any countries who produce more than those three?
2. Why is it that they hold the meetings in places like Cancun, Bali, Rio etc. Why not hold the meetings in places like Hoboken, NJ, Liberty City, FL, Buffalo, NY? The next one will be in a Lisbon, Portugal, another beautiful place.
Wonder how much energy is consumed keeping the delegates happy and feeling like they are accomplishing something.
I have two questions:
Last time I checked China, India and the United States are the industrialized world. Are there any countries who produce more than those three?
2. Why is it that they hold the meetings in places like Cancun, Bali, Rio etc. Why not hold the meetings in places like Hoboken, NJ, Liberty City, FL, Buffalo, NY? The next one will be in a Lisbon, Portugal, another beautiful place.
Wonder how much energy is consumed keeping the delegates happy and feeling like they are accomplishing something.
Similar Threads
0
50