NOBEL Prize Winners Say NO to AGW........

[flacaltenn]

The Nobel Laureate Climate conference came and went without fan fare or a consensus on CAGW....

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)

The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears.

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.

Then to add insult to injury OF the 65 attendees only 30 (less than half) signed the document showing that major contributors to scenic no longer believe in CAGW. Several called the theroy a "scam".

OPP's even world renowned scientists say AGW is a fraud.

Source

He's a physicist.

Fucking retards.

Ever hear of Atmospheric Physics? Physics of Ocean Thermal Circulation? Of course you haven't.. A LARGE fraction of GWarming papers include Physicists.. Same guys who designed all the space packages that STUDY climate change..

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

But...but...but...consensus...settled science!

Figure 3: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence ofanthropogenicclimate change(green) and unconvinced by the evidence (red) with a given number of totalclimatepublications(Anderegg 2010).

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

From the link........

Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.

“Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

In his talk, Giaever complained that he had become famous for his climate contrarianism, which he claimed indicated that dissenting opinions on the subject are not welcome. On the contrary, Giaever has been criticized for repeating long-debunked climate myths which he could have easily learned about through a little bit of research - by perusing the Skeptical Science database, for example, where we have debunked all of his Googled climate misconceptions.

Instead, Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which he has not even done the most basic research. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized. Giaever finishes his talk by proclaiming

"Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely."

The problem is that Giaever has not done his homework, which is why he gets the wrong answer, and his presentation deserves a failing grade. Ironically, Giaever defines "pseudoscience" as only seeking evidence to confirm one's desired hypothesis, which is precisely how Giaever himself has behaved with respect to climate science.
Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Listening to Giaever's opinions on climate science is equivalent to giving your dentist a pamphlet on heart surgery and asking him to crack your chest open.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Ivar Giaever's links to Exxon Mobil, Heartland, Cato etc

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

His Nobel [42 years ago] had zero to do with atmospheric physics...this dude is now 86 years old...

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Prize in Physics 1973 together with Leo Esaki and Brian D. Josephson "for their experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in semiconductors and superconductors, respectively".

Affiliations

• Heartland Institute— “Global warming Expert.”[5]

• Cato Institute—Endorser of Cato Institute's global warming advertisement.

Publications
According to Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute, the University of Oslo and Google Scholar, Dr. Giaever has not published any work in the area of climate science.

 

[westwall]

The Nobel Laureate Climate conference came and went without fan fare or a consensus on CAGW....

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)

The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears.

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.

Then to add insult to injury OF the 65 attendees only 30 (less than half) signed the document showing that major contributors to scenic no longer believe in CAGW. Several called the theroy a "scam".

OPP's even world renowned scientists say AGW is a fraud.

Source

He's a physicist.

Fucking retards.

Who can teach every climatology class there is including Graduate Level courses. A PhD climatologist, on the other hand would be lost, completely lost after the third year in Physics and the thought they could teach a Graduate level course in physics is laughable.

 

[westwall]

His Nobel [42 years ago] had zero to do with atmospheric physics...this dude is now 86 years old...

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Prize in Physics 1973 together with Leo Esaki and Brian D. Josephson "for their experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in semiconductors and superconductors, respectively".

Affiliations

• 
  
  
  • Heartland Institute— “Global warming Expert.”[5]

• 
  
  
  • Cato Institute—Endorser of Cato Institute's global warming advertisement.

Publications
According to Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute, the University of Oslo and Google Scholar, Dr. Giaever has not published any work in the area of climate science.

Who cares. As a physicist he is more qualified to review a PhD climatologists work, than a PhD climatologist is to review a third year physics students work.

Your constant attempt to give your high priests some form of magical powers merely demonstrates how far removed from science, and how closely aligned to religion you all have become.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Your constant attempt to give your high priests some form of magical powers merely demonstrates how far removed from science, and how closely aligned to religion you all have become.

He does not know beans about Climate science...he is getting paid by polluters like Exxon..he is 86 years old...and then there is this
Scientist who actually have a career in Climate Science say this

Figure 3: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence ofanthropogenicclimate change(green) and unconvinced by the evidence (red) with a given number of totalclimatepublications(Anderegg 2010).


...he did not review Jack sh*t and does not understand why he does not see an invisible gas CO 2

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Question

how come they do not find an actual Climate Scientist to deny the Global warming...?

 

[westwall]

Your constant attempt to give your high priests some form of magical powers merely demonstrates how far removed from science, and how closely aligned to religion you all have become.

He does not know beans about Climate science...he is getting paid by polluters like Exxon..he is 86 years old...and then there is this
Scientist who actually have a career in Climate Science say this

Figure 3: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence ofanthropogenicclimate change(green) and unconvinced by the evidence (red) with a given number of totalclimatepublications(Anderegg 2010).


...he did not review Jack sh*t and does not understand why he does not see an invisible gas CO 2

He can look at the output from a climate scientist and KNOW within two hours whether the work has merit. Your precious climatologist could spend three years looking at a physics thesis and STILL not know what the hell the physics STUDENT was talking about. That's the difference between an "EXACT" science, and a "soft" science.

Put another way so even a idiot can understand, look at an exact science as track and field. The only thing that matters is the numbers. Who came first. The numbers on the stop watch are all that matter. There is no subjectivity.

Climatology, and ALL of the "soft" sciences are more akin to gymnastics. In other words they are subjective....

"Who do think dances better? Can we get a consensus on that?"

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Who is saying what?

• Bob Carter, Heartland Institute: "Currently the planet is cooling." Wrong. The last decade (2000-2009) was the hottest on record; 2010 was the hottest year recorded.
• Fred Singer, Science and Environmental Policy Project: "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant." Nope. Acting under U.S. Supreme Court direction, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that CO2is a pollutant because of the harm it causes.
• Joseph Bast, Heartland Institute: "Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate." Misleading, to say the least: 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

 

[mamooth]

You have to be a better scientist to be make it as a climatologist. You have rise from understanding one discipline to understanding multiple disciplines, you have to know statistics cold, and above all, you have to understand the scientific method. That's where deniers fail the hardest. They all seem to think that they can prove their case by waving their hands around widly and snarling at people, instead of by making testable predictions, which the climate scientists have been doing successfully for decades now.

Anyone who has advanced into the climatology field could easily teach, say, any geology class with just a bit of prep. In contrast, your average geologist would be utterly helpless when faced with a climatology topic, as some geologists have so clearly demonstrated. Not surprising, as climatology is generally a post-doc specialty that only the brightest go into after they start out in the hardest of the hard sciences.

If Giaver is so brilliant, you deniers need to explain what was it he said that was so brilliant. And back it up. Get crackin'. Do some science, instead of argument-from-authority fallacies.

 

[westwall]

Question

how come they do not find an actual Climate Scientist to deny the Global warming...?

Dr. Tim Ball is an actual climatologist who says the theory is full of poo. Judith Curry has decided that good science is more important to her than toeing the company line so she points out the flaws in logic and math that the climate faithful are constantly engaging in so they try and discredit her.

A scientist argues the science. A politician tries to destroy the messenger. Were you not a total dickhead you could understand that.

 

[westwall]

You have to be a better scientist to be make it as a climatologist. You have rise from understand one discipline to understand multiple disciplines, you have to know statistics cold, and above all, you have to understand the scientific method. That's where deniers fail the hardest. They all seem to think that they can prove their case by waving their hands around widly and snarling at people, instead of by making testable predictions, which the climate scientists have been doing successfully for decades now.

For example, anyone who has advanced into the climatology field could easily teach any geology class with just a bit of prep. In contrast, your average geologist would be utterly helpless when faced with a climatology topic, as Westwall here has so clearly demonstrated.

And again, Giaver fails hard at the logic and science. He babbles debunked denier nonsense.

Bullshit. Climatology is a soft science. Most climatologists come from the ranks of geographers. Geographers are failed geologists who couldn't handle the hard math and the chemistry and the physics involved. Geology is fairly easy till the third year. That's when the geology classes lose a lot of people who all opt for geography as their field.

Climatology is EASY!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Climatology, and ALL of the "soft" sciences are more akin to gymnastics. In other words they are subjective....

"Who do think dances better? Can we get a consensus on that?"

The only ones being objective are the ones GETTING PAID BY EXXON


this magic [ He can look at the output from a climate scientist and KNOW within two hours whether the work has merit] Giever an 86 year old who does not know beans about Climate outweighs 97 percent of actual Climate scientist


Gee if one 86 year old can do that why don 't other actual real climate scientist do the same thing ???? oh I forgot

ONLY EXXON HEARTLAND KOCH BROS SCIENTIST ARE OBJECTIVE

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

A scientist argues the science. A politician tries to destroy the messenger. Were you not a total dickhead you could understand that.

iF YOU WERE NOT AN ARROGANT ASSHOLE ... you would understand 97 percent consensus among actual real climate scientist...you are just another Right wing trash talker....asshole

 

[koshergrl]

Hahahahaha...I love to see kooks exposed. Poor OR, he's having a panic attack thinking of all the drunken rants where he's called human global warming deniers "anti-science".

 

[westwall]

Climatology, and ALL of the "soft" sciences are more akin to gymnastics. In other words they are subjective....

"Who do think dances better? Can we get a consensus on that?"

The only ones being objective are the ones GETTING PAID BY EXXON


this magic [ He can look at the output from a climate scientist and KNOW within two hours whether the work has merit] Giever an 86 year old who does not know beans about Climate outweighs 97 percent of actual Climate scientist


Gee if one 86 year old can do that why don 't other actual real climate scientist do the same thing ???? oh I forgot

ONLY EXXON HEARTLAND KOCH BROS SCIENTIST ARE OBJECTIVE

How many TRILLIONS of dollars are at stake for the climatologists, and more importantly, those who support them if they get their way? As opposed to the hundreds of millions that the oil companies have invested? If you want to follow the money it is YOUR side that has spent the most dude.

Were you intellectually honest you would acknowledge that FACT.

But you're not. You're a propagandist who doesn't give a shit about facts.

 

[westwall]

A scientist argues the science. A politician tries to destroy the messenger. Were you not a total dickhead you could understand that.

iF YOU WERE NOT AN ARROGANT ASSHOLE ... you would understand 97 percent consensus among actual real climate scientist...you are just another Right wing trash talker....asshole

I'm a scientist and the 97% meme has been PROVEN to be bullshit. Take your ignorant ass and go learn some science you silly twerp.

You haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about. I do.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

A scientist argues the science. A politician tries to destroy the messenger. Were you not a total dickhead you could understand that.

here you fk face moron...this is the Heartland Institute that pays your Giever...notice the Science and the lack of ad hominem ...arrogant fool