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

[MisterBeale]

And have we noticed strange behavior from the bees?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. - IPCC Official position

Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
Posted on 8 July 2015 by dana1981

A new study has examined the comments on climate science-denying blogs and found strong evidence of widespread conspiratorial thinking. The study looks at the comments made in response to a previous paper linking science denial and conspiracy theories.

Motivated rejection of science
Three years ago, social scientists Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac published a paper in the journal Psychological Science titled NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science.

The paper detailed the evidence the scientists found that, using survey data provided by visitors to climate blogs, those exhibiting conspiratorial thinking are more likely to be skeptical of scientists’ conclusions about vaccinations, genetically modified foods, and climate change. This result was replicated in a follow-up study using a representative U.S. sample that obtained the same result linking conspiratorial thinking to climate denial

I quoted the lead author of IPCC 4 and 5.

Who did you quote

And what is the root word of the 'I' word in IPCC? That speaks for itself.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

So being connected up with anything that doesn't jibe with AGW propaganda is worse than those who are subsidized by governments to push AGW?
Phony rebuttal.

Yeah that and the fact this guy is 86 years old, he has no expertize in Climate science and is being paid by Exxon because he had a Nobel 42 years ago...yeah the Heartland Institute is not known for scientific rigor know what I mean LOl...aside from that as I pointed out there are 97 percent of actual real Climate scientist saying he is wrong..

The 97% number is twisted. Many of those alleged 97% disagree with the severity of any warming and especially disagree with the unnecessary extreme measures being undertaken. And when alleged science relies on polls it's no longer science.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The entire UN IPCC is biased by their mission statement which states that they are only looking for MAN-MADE causes of Global Warming. How do think they hire their scientists?

With money. My local atmospherics professor admitted he moved from scenic Pasadena, CA to suburban DC ghetto PG County, MD because in his words he 'moved from soft money to hard money'.

 

[flacaltenn]

The entire UN IPCC is biased by their mission statement which states that they are only looking for MAN-MADE causes of Global Warming. How do think they hire their scientists?

With money. My local atmospherics professor admitted he moved from scenic Pasadena, CA to suburban DC ghetto PG County, MD because in his words he 'moved from soft money to hard money'.

That's convenient. Closer to the trough at dinnertime.. I had to fly from Silicon Valley to DC twice a month to feed our research programs.. That gets real old -- real quick..

PG county ain't exactly ghetto unless you try to get downtown on local streets. I tried that a couple times just for the adrenalin rush. Lots of cool street parties goin on in North D.C.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Tactics of the "Climate Truthers"....

Denigrate Peer-Reviewed Science And Scientific Institutions
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) brings together thousands of the top climate scientists to review and summarize the mainstream scientific understanding of global climate change. Yet conservative media often portray this UN agency as non-credible -- or even akin to terrorists. Fox News once tried to dismiss the work of over 1250 authors who contributed to the 2007 IPCC assessment report because one of the authors was a graduate student.

Fox News host Sean Hannity similarly claimed the IPCC has "stopped at nothing to sell its agenda":


You have seen the CATEGORICAL declarations that the IPCC is corrupt by Numb nuts who then cite Heartland funded NON CLIMATE SCIENTIST as more credible...are these people to be taken seriously ? Maybe but I am not taking any of these Truthers seriously ...what you kidding me ?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Tactics of the Climate Truthers...part 2 or "It's not fair and balanced to air both sides of a debate if one of the sides is BS."

Present Contrarians As "Objective" Experts

Conservative media typically turn to a roster of professional climate change contrarians and portray them as "experts" on the issue. What they don't mention is that most of these climate "experts" don't have a background in climate science and are often on the bankroll of the fossil fuel industry.

A Media Matters study detailed how certain climate contrarians have been given a large platform by the media, particularly Fox News.

For instance, Fox News cut away from President Barack Obama's recent climate change speech to host Chris Horner of the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute -- giving approximately equal time to Horner and the president.

 

[mamooth]

The sun was dismissed out of hand with tricks like IGNORING TSI -- UNTIL the GW model predictions started to fail badly in 2000s.

That's some interesting revisionist history.

So -- after a few years -- Climate science now realizes that the Climate takes 100s of year to settle to new equilibrium temperatures.

Except climate science realizes no such thing. That's just your theory, one you had to retreat to after the failure of your previous theories.

During the "pause" that never actually existed, you told us the equilibrium had been reached from the solar increase from around 1950. And then it turned out the pause was a hoax, and temperature was still shooting up. So now you've upped your time-to-reach-equilibrium from decades to centuries.

So the fact that this TSI graph above flattened out about 1980 means that delays and storage can "ring" that stimulus for certainly decades..

Sadly, centuries of no warming make your theory ... what's the word ... ridiculous. That's right, all the heat hid in the deep oceans for centuries, and didn't affect surface temperatures at all. But it still would have made sea levels shoot up. Which didn't happen. So much for that theory.

 

[flacaltenn]

The sun was dismissed out of hand with tricks like IGNORING TSI -- UNTIL the GW model predictions started to fail badly in 2000s.

That's some interesting revisionist history.

So -- after a few years -- Climate science now realizes that the Climate takes 100s of year to settle to new equilibrium temperatures.

Except climate science realizes no such thing. That's just your theory, one you had to retreat to after the failure of your previous theories.

During the "pause" that never actually existed, you told us the equilibrium had been reached from the solar increase from around 1950. And then it turned out the pause was a hoax, and temperature was still shooting up. So now you've upped your time-to-reach-equilibrium from decades to centuries.

So the fact that this TSI graph above flattened out about 1980 means that delays and storage can "ring" that stimulus for certainly decades..

Sadly, centuries of no warming make your theory ... what's the word ... ridiculous. That's right, all the heat hid in the deep oceans for centuries, and didn't affect surface temperatures at all. But it still would have made sea levels shoot up. Which didn't happen. So much for that theory.

What the hell you saying there Elmer? Don't recognize a word of anything CLOSE to what I said and the rest is an unfounded rant. I've posted papers from Max Planck and WoodsHole and J. Curry saying EXACTLY what I said happened. Take two of these and then ATTACK me again..

I can ignore you just fine. Just can't allow you to make up shit I never said..

 

[flacaltenn]

Tactics of the "Climate Truthers"....

Denigrate Peer-Reviewed Science And Scientific Institutions
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) brings together thousands of the top climate scientists to review and summarize the mainstream scientific understanding of global climate change. Yet conservative media often portray this UN agency as non-credible -- or even akin to terrorists. Fox News once tried to dismiss the work of over 1250 authors who contributed to the 2007 IPCC assessment report because one of the authors was a graduate student.

Fox News host Sean Hannity similarly claimed the IPCC has "stopped at nothing to sell its agenda":


You have seen the CATEGORICAL declarations that the IPCC is corrupt by Numb nuts who then cite Heartland funded NON CLIMATE SCIENTIST as more credible...are these people to be taken seriously ? Maybe but I am not taking any of these Truthers seriously ...what you kidding me ?

C'mon Slothrop -- play fair --- at least give the damn links for the propaganda you've absorbed..

Study Finds 5 Ways Conservative Media Erode Trust In Scientists Blog Media Matters for America

The IPCC has denigrated itself. Every F-n one of their International Conferences on Climate Change has ended in a Begging and Whining Festival with walk-outs and hissy fits about who is gonna get what money. THAT -- and the multitude of honest statements about the redistributionist goals of their GW crusade..

MediaMatters is your brain? Bless your heart.....

 

[flacaltenn]

And have we noticed strange behavior from the bees?

Thought we were chatting about the strange behaviour of Nobel Laureates and Global Warmers. Are the bees too warm?? Is it that 0.5degC that's buggin them?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

MediaMatters is your brain? Bless your heart.....

Try to think "outside the Fox" ...good luck...you will need it...

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The entire UN IPCC is biased by their mission statement which states that they are only looking for MAN-MADE causes of Global Warming. How do think they hire their scientists?

With money. My local atmospherics professor admitted he moved from scenic Pasadena, CA to suburban DC ghetto PG County, MD because in his words he 'moved from soft money to hard money'.

That's convenient. Closer to the trough at dinnertime.. I had to fly from Silicon Valley to DC twice a month to feed our research programs.. That gets real old -- real quick..

PG county ain't exactly ghetto unless you try to get downtown on local streets. I tried that a couple times just for the adrenalin rush. Lots of cool street parties goin on in North D.C.

PG County is cultural ghetto. I live here. $73k median income ghetto. Second highest crime and second worst schools in MD.

 

[mamooth]

What the hell you saying there Elmer? Don't recognize a word of anything CLOSE to what I said and the rest is an unfounded rant. I've posted papers from Max Planck and WoodsHole and J. Curry saying EXACTLY what I said happened.

No, Planck and Woods Hole didn't say that. That was your rather peculiar interpretation. And Judith Curry isn't taken seriously by anyone except deniers.

That is, you have no climate scientists supporting your claim that all the science says it now.

Take two of these and then ATTACK me again.

If you call the debunking of your claims an "attack", I guess that gives you an excuse not to address it.

Again, if all that sudden increase in solar heating hid in the deep oceans, why didn't the sea level rise accelerate dramatically? Sea level was creeping up slowly at the time, but it had been creeping up at the same rate before that solar increase.

And if we're now at the back end of the rise to equilibrium, sea level rise should be decelerating, as the oceans get closer to equilibrium and absorb less heat. Yet sea level rise is accelarating now.

Or there's the fact that any solar-induced warming should show stratospheric warming, more warming in the day, and more warming in the tropics. And instead we see stratospheric cooling, more warming at night, and more polar warming, all the signs of greenhouse-gas induced warming.

Not that you'll care. You've decided it's the sun, period, and nothing is going to shake your faith. Nor do you see anything wrong with your "You haven't absolutely ruled out every other possibility, no matter how far-fetched it is, therefore you're totally wrong" philosophy of science.

I can ignore you just fine. Just can't allow you to make up shit I never said..

What you say is all over the place. Can you settle on one number? How long before this equilibrium is reached? Exactly what does your theory predict, and what would disprove it? Stating such things is necessary to move your theory out of the realm of handwaving and pseudoscience.

 

[flacaltenn]

MediaMatters is your brain? Bless your heart.....

Try to think "outside the Fox" ...good luck...you will need it...

Did YOUR sources cover this story about the Nobel Prize winners? Of course not. You NEED us to round out your education..

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

MediaMatters is your brain? Bless your heart.....

Try to think "outside the Fox" ...good luck...you will need it...

Did YOUR sources cover this story about the Nobel Prize winners? Of course not. You NEED us to round out your education..

Have faith in Heartland Institute...the last bastion of scientific integrity ... the only ones with no agenda...wahoooo

 

[flacaltenn]

MediaMatters is your brain? Bless your heart.....

Try to think "outside the Fox" ...good luck...you will need it...

Did YOUR sources cover this story about the Nobel Prize winners? Of course not. You NEED us to round out your education..

Have faith in Heartland Institute...the last bastion of scientific integrity ... the only ones with no agenda...wahoooo

I may live in and love the Heartland, but I've never been to the website and never saw the movie..

 

[Billy_Bob]

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

Mr. Billy Bob, both you and Watts are outright liars. Over half signed the document;

The Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings Interdisciplinary Meeting with Nobel Laureates from the fields of physics physiology or medicine and chemistry

Mainau Declaration 2015
On 3 July 2015, the final day of the 65th Lindau Meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection. It states “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions.”

Too Funny... 6 signatures of people who DID NOT ATTEND and were added after the fact... You guys will stoop so low and try anything to some how "keep the consensus alive"...




You found that on Media Splatters... Known for lying and deceptions.. at least your consistent, consistently propagating lies.. I knew it wouldn't take long for the spin masters to lie something up.. their faithful wont check..

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

What the hell you saying there Elmer? Don't recognize a word of anything CLOSE to what I said and the rest is an unfounded rant. I've posted papers from Max Planck and WoodsHole and J. Curry saying EXACTLY what I said happened.

No, Planck and Woods Hole didn't say that. That was your rather peculiar interpretation. And Judith Curry isn't taken seriously by anyone except deniers.

That is, you have no climate scientists supporting your claim that all the science says it now.

Take two of these and then ATTACK me again.

If you call the debunking of your claims an "attack", I guess that gives you an excuse not to address it.

Again, if all that sudden increase in solar heating hid in the deep oceans, why didn't the sea level rise accelerate dramatically? Sea level was creeping up slowly at the time, but it had been creeping up at the same rate before that solar increase.

And if we're now at the back end of the rise to equilibrium, sea level rise should be decelerating, as the oceans get closer to equilibrium and absorb less heat. Yet sea level rise is accelarating now.

Or there's the fact that any solar-induced warming should show stratospheric warming, more warming in the day, and more warming in the tropics. And instead we see stratospheric cooling, more warming at night, and more polar warming, all the signs of greenhouse-gas induced warming.

Not that you'll care. You've decided it's the sun, period, and nothing is going to shake your faith. Nor do you see anything wrong with your "You haven't absolutely ruled out every other possibility, no matter how far-fetched it is, therefore you're totally wrong" philosophy of science.

I can ignore you just fine. Just can't allow you to make up shit I never said..

What you say is all over the place. Can you settle on one number? How long before this equilibrium is reached? Exactly what does your theory predict, and what would disprove it? Stating such things is necessary to move your theory out of the realm of handwaving and pseudoscience.

You're doing the typical AGW alarmist extremist routine of disparaging dissent. Who are you to dismiss Judith Curry? Subsidized alarmist researchers call Richard Lindzen 'Dick' Lindzen because he dares to threaten their gravy train. When a side of a scientific issue is so politicized any rational person should react with serious doubt.

 

[jon_berzerk]

hashtag#consensusmatters

--LOL