Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ – ‘Based On Nonsense’ –

[Old Rocks]

Bear, you are truly an inobservant dumb fuck. I have lived through 'it' for over 72 years, and have seen glacial retreat in the Cascades, Sierra Nevada, and Rockies. Seen it up close and personal. And, from the USGS, you can get a photographic record of most of the glaciers in the world, and see for yourself the retreat that is presently going on.

The problem for you and the other 'Conservatives' is that you do not want to face reality, and will do all within your power to deny that reality. And you absolutely avoid information presented by the people that actually study in the disciplines that are involved in climate science, instead preferring nonsense by simpletons that know very little science at all.

 

[Freewill]

Happer

In July 2011, Happer published an article in First Things, "The Truth About Greenhouse Gasses: The Dubious Science of Climate Crusaders," in which he discusses climate science's concern with increasing CO2 as a "Moral Epidemic".[16] Among other responses, climate scientist Michael MacCracken published a detailed critique.[17][18]

In January 2012, Happer and 15 others published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "No Need to Panic About Global Warming", in which they said that "The international warming establishment" has suppressed those who have doubts on the conclusion of climate science, "we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union." In their view, it comes down to climate scientists living very well on the government trough, "Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them."[19] A discussion and exchange developed in the New York Review of Books[20][21] along with another in Physics Today.[22][23]

In March 2012, Happer published another op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "Global Warming Models are Wrong Again", in which he focused on climate models, one of the lines of evidence for anthropogenic climate change and said that "The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with model predictions." He also said that global warming has stopped in the last 10 years.[24]

In May 2013, Happer and Harrison Schmitt, two of the authors of the January 2012 op-ed, published another in the Wall Street Journal, "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," in which they termed elevated atmospheric CO2, "a boon to plant life".[25][26]

In July 2014 Happer said, during a CNBC interview, that "The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler." [27]

How do you suppose scientists can pull back from their theory? Do they just one day say, hey, it's no big deal. Or hey the numbers are so close it could be just our way of adjusting the numbers. Or hey, the Yellowstone just erupted and it will be damn cold for 20 years. I would think that after taking all the money and investing their entire lives to forcing people to comply to their theory it would be hard to walk away.

 

[Freewill]

Bear, you are truly an inobservant dumb fuck. I have lived through 'it' for over 72 years, and have seen glacial retreat in the Cascades, Sierra Nevada, and Rockies. Seen it up close and personal. And, from the USGS, you can get a photographic record of most of the glaciers in the world, and see for yourself the retreat that is presently going on.

The problem for you and the other 'Conservatives' is that you do not want to face reality, and will do all within your power to deny that reality. And you absolutely avoid information presented by the people that actually study in the disciplines that are involved in climate science, instead preferring nonsense by simpletons that know very little science at all.

The problem for you is, you need to tell me why we need more glaciers. A warmer world is a boom to mankind.

 

[Crick]

Yes, "a boom".

One hint: WATER SUPPLIES

 

[Freewill]

I must admit we are having one of the warmer Novembers I can remember, loving it!!!

Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit 'Irrational' - 'Based On Nonsense' - 'Leading us down a false path'

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore on climate claims: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s2Kc3U

1. 
   Richard Lindzen
   Physicist
   Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.Wikipedia
   
   Born: February 8, 1940 (age 75),Webster, MA
   Education: Harvard University
   Fields: Atmospheric physics
   Doctoral advisor: Richard M. Goody
   Books: Climate Change: The Facts

1. 
   William Happer
   Physicist
   William Happer is an American physicist who has specialised in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.Wikipedia
   
   Born: July 27, 1939 (age 76), India
   Education: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
   Fields: Atomic physics
   Notable awards: Davisson–Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics

1. 
   Patrick Moore is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada. He trades as Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, and is a frequent public speaker on behalf of industry groups. Wikipedia
   
   Born: 1947, Port Alice, Canada
   Organizations founded: Greenpeace
   Education: University of British Columbia,North Carolina State University
   Books: Green Spirit: Trees are the Answer

What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.

Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.

Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.

But is it catastrophic? Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years. Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple. Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.

Which brings us to the truth.

Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.

The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.

A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.

All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.

We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.

The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.

Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.

Enjoy the lower heating bills and walking in a tee shirt in November, it isn't going to last for long.

 

[Freewill]

Yes, "a boom".

One hint: WATER SUPPLIES

Where do you suppose the water is going to go?

 

[skookerasbil]

You alarmist assholes would happily buy a bag of dog doo if it was packaged up just right!!! But I look at it this way........your being prone to being duped provides me with a ton of hoots on almost a daily basis so I really shouldn't complain. After all, who has more fun than me? And at your expense too!! Im about 6 years in this forum and all that time, its just about the same 4 or 5 k00ks in here consistently. And the skeptic threads DOMINATE the board in terms of resiliency.......nobody sticks with the alarmist threads ( just look at the first page )

 

[Freewill]

Happer

In July 2011, Happer published an article in First Things, "The Truth About Greenhouse Gasses: The Dubious Science of Climate Crusaders," in which he discusses climate science's concern with increasing CO2 as a "Moral Epidemic".[16] Among other responses, climate scientist Michael MacCracken published a detailed critique.[17][18]

In January 2012, Happer and 15 others published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "No Need to Panic About Global Warming", in which they said that "The international warming establishment" has suppressed those who have doubts on the conclusion of climate science, "we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union." In their view, it comes down to climate scientists living very well on the government trough, "Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them."[19] A discussion and exchange developed in the New York Review of Books[20][21] along with another in Physics Today.[22][23]

In March 2012, Happer published another op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, "Global Warming Models are Wrong Again", in which he focused on climate models, one of the lines of evidence for anthropogenic climate change and said that "The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with model predictions." He also said that global warming has stopped in the last 10 years.[24]

In May 2013, Happer and Harrison Schmitt, two of the authors of the January 2012 op-ed, published another in the Wall Street Journal, "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," in which they termed elevated atmospheric CO2, "a boon to plant life".[25][26]

In July 2014 Happer said, during a CNBC interview, that "The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler." [27]

Global warming in the US has stopped for the last 10 years, if you want I will show you the NOAA site that clearly shows a decline. I have shown it so many times you have to have seen it.

So, the rest of the world warms but the biggest contributor of CO2 does not warm? Does that make sense to you? BTW I think China has not exceed us yet but I could be wrong. I realize that the US only comprises 2 percent of the world's land mass. But many theories, observations and testing has been conducted on a far smaller sample.

So I see NOAA telling us that the US has not warmed. They don't actually come out and say it but the data they provide to us sure does, unless they have adjusted the numbers again. So I go out in the middle of November wearing a tee shirt and i really have to admit I enjoyed it. So as long as I see the Yellowstone about to erupt and the scientists telling me how bad that will be, I think I will enjoy our climate respite.

 

[skookerasbil]

I must admit we are having one of the warmer Novembers I can remember, loving it!!!

Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit 'Irrational' - 'Based On Nonsense' - 'Leading us down a false path'

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore on climate claims: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s2Kc3U

1. 
   Richard Lindzen
   Physicist
   Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.Wikipedia
   
   Born: February 8, 1940 (age 75),Webster, MA
   Education: Harvard University
   Fields: Atmospheric physics
   Doctoral advisor: Richard M. Goody
   Books: Climate Change: The Facts

1. 
   William Happer
   Physicist
   William Happer is an American physicist who has specialised in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.Wikipedia
   
   Born: July 27, 1939 (age 76), India
   Education: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
   Fields: Atomic physics
   Notable awards: Davisson–Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics

1. 
   Patrick Moore is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada. He trades as Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, and is a frequent public speaker on behalf of industry groups. Wikipedia
   
   Born: 1947, Port Alice, Canada
   Organizations founded: Greenpeace
   Education: University of British Columbia,North Carolina State University
   Books: Green Spirit: Trees are the Answer

What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.

Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.

Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.

But is it catastrophic? Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years. Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple. Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.

Which brings us to the truth.

Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.

The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.

A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.

All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.

We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.

The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.

Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.

Enjoy the lower heating bills and walking in a tee shirt in November, it isn't going to last for long.

Dang........one of the best posts of the YEAR right here ^^^^

s0n......you nail it!!!

 

[Crick]

Yes, "a boom".

One hint: WATER SUPPLIES

Where do you suppose the water is going to go?

Glaciers provide summer drinking and irrigation water in numerous locations worldwide. The loss of glaciers is the loss of those supplies. Where do YOU think it goes?

 

[Billy_Bob]

From Wikipedia's article on Richard Lindzen

Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[49] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[50]These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[51] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it toPNAS.[52] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[53] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[52][54]Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[55]

WIKI,, a left wing propagandists factory with the likes of liars like William Connely at the helm.. Yes a revisionist piece of shit who changes everything to support the failed socialist power grab policies..

WIki isn't fit for shit! And yet you use it as if it had any relevance to facts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I must admit we are having one of the warmer Novembers I can remember, loving it!!!

Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit 'Irrational' - 'Based On Nonsense' - 'Leading us down a false path'

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore on climate claims: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s2Kc3U

1. 
   Richard Lindzen
   Physicist
   Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.Wikipedia
   
   Born: February 8, 1940 (age 75),Webster, MA
   Education: Harvard University
   Fields: Atmospheric physics
   Doctoral advisor: Richard M. Goody
   Books: Climate Change: The Facts

1. 
   William Happer
   Physicist
   William Happer is an American physicist who has specialised in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.Wikipedia
   
   Born: July 27, 1939 (age 76), India
   Education: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
   Fields: Atomic physics
   Notable awards: Davisson–Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics

1. 
   Patrick Moore is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada. He trades as Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, and is a frequent public speaker on behalf of industry groups. Wikipedia
   
   Born: 1947, Port Alice, Canada
   Organizations founded: Greenpeace
   Education: University of British Columbia,North Carolina State University
   Books: Green Spirit: Trees are the Answer

What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.

Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.

Nah what scares us the most the AGW cult has not left their moms basement in decades.

So you without any college degree whatsoever believes that climatologists with extensive educational backgrounds all live in basements?

I have a degree in atmospheric physics and am a certified meteorologist, AGW is crap and a lie! The empirical evidence proves it. Dr Lindzen is one of the most prominent atmospheric scientists today and just who the fuck are you?

 

[skookerasbil]

I just want any of the idiots to explain to me the "little ice age".

The "idiots" don't care.........and have no explaining to do. Because they are winning.........BIG!!!

The American public doesn't give shit about the science and the evidence is all over the place honey!!! The first litmus test of course is the state of renewable energy. In 2015, still a joke. Solar energy providing still well under 1% of our electricity. Wind? Just a little bit more.........and all projections, even by the Obama EIA, out to 2050 show little increase. To max of 10% and most of that will be hydro. In other words............fossil fuels will dominate. DOMINATE sweetie.......which means the science doesn't matter in the real world!!!

More evidence supporting the "idiots"..........and this graph has been steadily falling since 2010 >>>>

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html][/URL]


In fact.......only those with pronounced inability to connect the dots cant understand the epic levels of lose for the alarmist nutters.......................


How laughable is this?? >>>>

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/EIA-annual-outlook-2011-2040_1.png.html][/URL]


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/coalpwning.png.html][/URL]


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/China%20installed%20capacity%20by%20fuel.png.html][/URL]


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/energy-stocks.jpg.html][/URL]


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/eia-energy-demand-to-2035_1.jpg.html][/URL]



Like Denis Leary says, "All losing all the time!!!"





[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/corp_sample.jpg.html][/URL]








Nobody cares about the science.....................

 

[skookerasbil]

I have to crack up going through this thread just now and especially after my post just above!!! These alarmist people.........in here talking about the alarmist science the same way as they have over the past 20 years!!! Whoile on one hand, they can be applauded for a remarkable level of resiliency, you'd think somewhere along the way you'd want to feel like your efforts are getting you SOMEHWERE!!!!!!!

[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/DUHHEAD.gif.html'][/URL]



Been using the 97% thing for what.........12 years now??

 

[Crick]

I have a degree in atmospheric physics and am a certified meteorologist, AGW is crap and a lie! The empirical evidence proves it. Dr Lindzen is one of the most prominent atmospheric scientists today and just who the fuck are you?

I throw the bullshit flag on that. You've already told us you're a retired cop working on a meteorology degree. Where'd the atmospheric physics come from?

Your judgement regarding a number of issues - like whether or not AR5 contains empirical data - has already been thrown SEVERELY into question. Lindzen is a laughing stock and has been for years.

 

[skookerasbil]

I'll say again.......post #73 clearly displays that the science talk is not mattering. Not amongst the public. Not in the government. Not in the private sector.

If the science is mattering in the real world, I'd like to see a single substantive link!!!

Just one s0ns!!!

Beyond being an interesting internet hobby........where is it mattering?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have a degree in atmospheric physics and am a certified meteorologist, AGW is crap and a lie! The empirical evidence proves it. Dr Lindzen is one of the most prominent atmospheric scientists today and just who the fuck are you?

I throw the bullshit flag on that. You've already told us you're a retired cop working on a meteorology degree. Where'd the atmospheric physics come from?

Your judgement regarding a number of issues - like whether or not AR5 contains empirical data - has already been thrown SEVERELY into question. Lindzen is a laughing stock and has been for years.

WOW... You really are totally clueless..

You have no intelligence or commonsense at discerning evidence from a guess. Again you show your ignorance. Well done!

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'll say again.......post #73 clearly displays that the science talk is not mattering. Not amongst the public. Not in the government. Not in the private sector.

If the science is mattering in the real world, I'd like to see a single substantive link!!!

Just one s0ns!!!

Beyond being an interesting internet hobby........where is it mattering?

When people lie in an attempt to place others in servitude it matters! We have many here in the US that dont understand what is being done to them and the consequences of being duped into being a slave to the UN and its socialist masters. Proving these fools wrong here helps me write papers which expose them globally. It is more than just a hobby for me now.

It matters as to what kind of world I leave my children and grand children..

 

[Billy000]

I must admit we are having one of the warmer Novembers I can remember, loving it!!!

Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit 'Irrational' - 'Based On Nonsense' - 'Leading us down a false path'

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore on climate claims: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s2Kc3U

1. 
   Richard Lindzen
   Physicist
   Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.Wikipedia
   
   Born: February 8, 1940 (age 75),Webster, MA
   Education: Harvard University
   Fields: Atmospheric physics
   Doctoral advisor: Richard M. Goody
   Books: Climate Change: The Facts

1. 
   William Happer
   Physicist
   William Happer is an American physicist who has specialised in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.Wikipedia
   
   Born: July 27, 1939 (age 76), India
   Education: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
   Fields: Atomic physics
   Notable awards: Davisson–Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics

1. 
   Patrick Moore is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada. He trades as Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, and is a frequent public speaker on behalf of industry groups. Wikipedia
   
   Born: 1947, Port Alice, Canada
   Organizations founded: Greenpeace
   Education: University of British Columbia,North Carolina State University
   Books: Green Spirit: Trees are the Answer

What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.

Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.

Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.

But is it catastrophic? Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years. Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple. Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.

Which brings us to the truth.

Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.

The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.

A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.

All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.

We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.

The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.

Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.

Enjoy the lower heating bills and walking in a tee shirt in November, it isn't going to last for long.

Lol where is this evidence that climatologists are profiting off of this? You people keep saying this without proof. Just because it sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is.

It's also so tiresome you bring up Al Gore. No one gives a shit what Al Gore says. I listen to the actual CONSENSUS of experts involved in the actual field.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I must admit we are having one of the warmer Novembers I can remember, loving it!!!

Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit 'Irrational' - 'Based On Nonsense' - 'Leading us down a false path'

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: 'Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.' - 'When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.'

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'

Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore on climate claims: 'We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.'

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/#ixzz3s2Kc3U

1. 
   Richard Lindzen
   Physicist
   Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.Wikipedia
   
   Born: February 8, 1940 (age 75),Webster, MA
   Education: Harvard University
   Fields: Atmospheric physics
   Doctoral advisor: Richard M. Goody
   Books: Climate Change: The Facts

1. 
   William Happer
   Physicist
   William Happer is an American physicist who has specialised in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.Wikipedia
   
   Born: July 27, 1939 (age 76), India
   Education: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
   Fields: Atomic physics
   Notable awards: Davisson–Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics

1. 
   Patrick Moore is a Canadian scientist and former president of Greenpeace Canada. He trades as Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, and is a frequent public speaker on behalf of industry groups. Wikipedia
   
   Born: 1947, Port Alice, Canada
   Organizations founded: Greenpeace
   Education: University of British Columbia,North Carolina State University
   Books: Green Spirit: Trees are the Answer

What I find hilarious about you cons is that you have no problem cherry picking when it comes to climate change. You intentionally ignore the fact that the vast majority of PEER-REVIEWED studies from around the world say man made climate change is real and cherry pick a handful ofbscientists who dissent. Not only that , but you choose scientists who aren't even involved in the discipline of climatology. It's kind of embarrassing.

Maybe you should just admit that deep down you know this phenomenon to be true and it scares you.

Here is what I think about the peer reviewed studies. It all depends on the input. Garbage in, garbage out. The numbers are crunched by a very few and the rest of the community makes their judgement on those numbers. So if those numbers are in question then any review will be in agreement, it more or less has to be. So it is not surprising that scientist look at the numbers, temperature up, CO2 up, man makes CO2 up then obviously there is a tie, and there may well be.

But is it catastrophic? Gore has been saying for 20 years we only have 10 years to act. Gore's famous CO2 to temperature graph shows CO2 lagging temperature by about 400 years. Temperature turns and goes up and 400 years later CO2 concentration goes up. Yes, they have an explanation for that but it isn't simple and in my opinion it should be simple. Nuclear power can be explained relatively easily. I am not sure why climate change has to be so complicated.

Which brings us to the truth.

Not all scientists who disagree with GW hysteria are lying.

The money supposedly buying of those who disagree pales in the amount given to scientist who do agree.

A few degree change in temperature is a boom for mankind. I certainly have enjoyed this fall.

All it will take to turn this around is a major eruption, then we will be talking crop damage and ice age.

We have bigger fish to fry, like putting people to work, then we have in shutting down industry for a few degree rise in temperature.

The whole discussion is not about polluting, it is about CO2 and warming.

Finally, I and you, have heard it all before. In the 70s you damn well know they preached nothing but disaster for the human race. It was predicted we would be out of oil by the 90s and I just read that the storage capacity of the world is full. They predicted that genetically altered food would be the end of our food supply, yet here we are producing more food then ever. They predicted that the world could not sustain a population near what we see today. Scientist make their careers developing theories, that is what they do, but they don't always do it right or are right.

Enjoy the lower heating bills and walking in a tee shirt in November, it isn't going to last for long.

Lol where is this evidence that climatologists are profiting off of this? You people keep saying this without proof. Just because it sounds like it could be true doesn't mean it actually is.

It's also so tiresome you bring up Al Gore. No one gives a shit what Al Gore says. I listen to the actual CONSENSUS of experts involved in the actual field.

All 30 or 40 of them... the rest are simply parrots waiting for their next cracker..