Uh Oh, More Scientists Saying AGW is Crap.

westwall

WHEN GUNS ARE BANNED ONLY THE RICH WILL HAVE GUNS
Gold Supporting Member
Apr 21, 2010
95,928
57,078
2,605
Nevada
And these are some heavy hitters. I wonder what the Hockey Stick Team will resort to to try and silence these guys.....


"A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2."



The "deniers who are denying!"

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.


Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com
 
And these are some heavy hitters. I wonder what the Hockey Stick Team will resort to to try and silence these guys.....

Mere WSJ opinion. Here's a "hockey stick" for ya.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

We have been told over and over that CO2 is the cause yet since 1998 there has been no significant warming even though CO2 continues to rise. And prior to that the change was 1/3 of a degree in about 20 years. I can not figure out why people might not believe the dire predictions of the few.

By the way we do not have a 10th of the knowledge needed to make a world wide climate computer model and every time they claim one shows some trend it is hilarious as shit. We OBSERVE the weather and make predictions based on OBSERVED data and that is only good out a couple weeks. Claiming they know what will happen in 100 years is laughable.
 
And these are some heavy hitters. I wonder what the Hockey Stick Team will resort to to try and silence these guys.....

Mere WSJ opinion. Here's a "hockey stick" for ya.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

We have been told over and over that CO2 is the cause yet since 1998 there has been no significant warming even though CO2 continues to rise. And prior to that the change was 1/3 of a degree in about 20 years. I can not figure out why people might not believe the dire predictions of the few.

By the way we do not have a 10th of the knowledge needed to make a world wide climate computer model and every time they claim one shows some trend it is hilarious as shit. We OBSERVE the weather and make predictions based on OBSERVED data and that is only good out a couple weeks. Claiming they know what will happen in 100 years is laughable.

Are you forgetting natural cycles? Nothing about AGW predicts those going away. Swinging more wildly, maybe, but not disappearing. The fact that CO2 has been going up should be significant, regardless of short-term temps. How can something that absorbs IR keep going up without there being an eventual effect on temps? That would violate Conservation of Energy, since statistically 50% of added absorption would be re-emitted towards earth, contributing to its warming.
 
Mere WSJ opinion. Here's a "hockey stick" for ya.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

We have been told over and over that CO2 is the cause yet since 1998 there has been no significant warming even though CO2 continues to rise. And prior to that the change was 1/3 of a degree in about 20 years. I can not figure out why people might not believe the dire predictions of the few.

By the way we do not have a 10th of the knowledge needed to make a world wide climate computer model and every time they claim one shows some trend it is hilarious as shit. We OBSERVE the weather and make predictions based on OBSERVED data and that is only good out a couple weeks. Claiming they know what will happen in 100 years is laughable.

Are you forgetting natural cycles? Nothing about AGW predicts those going away. Swinging more wildly, maybe, but not disappearing. The fact that CO2 has been going up should be significant, regardless of short-term temps. How can something that absorbs IR keep going up without there being an eventual effect on temps? That would violate Conservation of Energy, since statistically 50% of added absorption would be re-emitted towards earth, contributing to its warming.





No, we NEVER forgot them. You claimed that CO2 was soooo powerful it would dwarf the effects of natural cycles...remember that? My, how the world has twirled.

Charlatan.
 
We have been told over and over that CO2 is the cause yet since 1998 there has been no significant warming even though CO2 continues to rise. And prior to that the change was 1/3 of a degree in about 20 years. I can not figure out why people might not believe the dire predictions of the few.

By the way we do not have a 10th of the knowledge needed to make a world wide climate computer model and every time they claim one shows some trend it is hilarious as shit. We OBSERVE the weather and make predictions based on OBSERVED data and that is only good out a couple weeks. Claiming they know what will happen in 100 years is laughable.

Are you forgetting natural cycles? Nothing about AGW predicts those going away. Swinging more wildly, maybe, but not disappearing. The fact that CO2 has been going up should be significant, regardless of short-term temps. How can something that absorbs IR keep going up without there being an eventual effect on temps? That would violate Conservation of Energy, since statistically 50% of added absorption would be re-emitted towards earth, contributing to its warming.

No, we NEVER forgot them. You claimed that CO2 was soooo powerful it would dwarf the effects of natural cycles...remember that? My, how the world has twirled.

Charlatan.

NO, never said anything like that. If the world is twirling, maybe you should lie down. :cool:
 
Are you forgetting natural cycles? Nothing about AGW predicts those going away. Swinging more wildly, maybe, but not disappearing. The fact that CO2 has been going up should be significant, regardless of short-term temps. How can something that absorbs IR keep going up without there being an eventual effect on temps? That would violate Conservation of Energy, since statistically 50% of added absorption would be re-emitted towards earth, contributing to its warming.

No, we NEVER forgot them. You claimed that CO2 was soooo powerful it would dwarf the effects of natural cycles...remember that? My, how the world has twirled.

Charlatan.

NO, never said anything like that. If the world is twirling, maybe you should lie down. :cool:





Absolute and utter horsecrap and you know it.

You may go away now...
 
Mere WSJ opinion. Here's a "hockey stick" for ya.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

We have been told over and over that CO2 is the cause yet since 1998 there has been no significant warming even though CO2 continues to rise. And prior to that the change was 1/3 of a degree in about 20 years. I can not figure out why people might not believe the dire predictions of the few.

By the way we do not have a 10th of the knowledge needed to make a world wide climate computer model and every time they claim one shows some trend it is hilarious as shit. We OBSERVE the weather and make predictions based on OBSERVED data and that is only good out a couple weeks. Claiming they know what will happen in 100 years is laughable.

Are you forgetting natural cycles? Nothing about AGW predicts those going away. Swinging more wildly, maybe, but not disappearing. The fact that CO2 has been going up should be significant, regardless of short-term temps. How can something that absorbs IR keep going up without there being an eventual effect on temps? That would violate Conservation of Energy, since statistically 50% of added absorption would be re-emitted towards earth, contributing to its warming.

Before AGW it was ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC fact that as CO2 increases in an environment it has a diminishing effect on heat retention. It is also an established fact that CO2 FOLLOWS rising temperatures, it does not precede them.
 
Cool West.......but the fact is, this is all just gravy. The alarmist crusade is falling like a stone in water when it comes to applying their science to public policy. Nobody gives a shit........and at this point, its not even debatable anymore.

Lol........I said more than 10 years ago that this would all be exposed as a fad. The only place people give a rats ass anymore is in the outer limits of the internet galaxy. Nowhere else.
 
Cool West.......but the fact is, this is all just gravy. The alarmist crusade is falling like a stone in water when it comes to applying their science to public policy. Nobody gives a shit........and at this point, its not even debatable anymore.

Lol........I said more than 10 years ago that this would all be exposed as a fad. The only place people give a rats ass anymore is in the outer limits of the internet galaxy. Nowhere else.




What you say is true but the fraudsters are now in an all out push to try and get their gravy train back. That's why we have to keep pounding their fraudulent science till they finally either give up and just quit, or are sitting in jail cooling their heels for the massive theft they have perpetrated.
 
Hmmmm....... So this CO2 is not having any kind of affect on the atmosphere or temperature. But Swiss Re and Munich Re both state that the weather damage from extreme events has risen five fold since 1970. And that at least half of the rise is due to an increase the severity and number of events.

The Arctic Sea Ice is decreasing in volume every year. May well be gone in the summer by 2020. We saw an order of magnitude increase in the outgassing of methane from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf from 2010 to 2011.

Arctic methane emergency

Both the Greenland Ice Cap and the Antarctic Ice Cap are losing ice by the tens of gigatons every year, at a rate that is increasing.

In spite of a double La Nina, 2011 still turned out to be at least the 11th warmest year on record.

The fraud is all on your side, Walleyes.
 
Hmmmm....... So this CO2 is not having any kind of affect on the atmosphere or temperature. But Swiss Re and Munich Re both state that the weather damage from extreme events has risen five fold since 1970. And that at least half of the rise is due to an increase the severity and number of events.

The Arctic Sea Ice is decreasing in volume every year. May well be gone in the summer by 2020. We saw an order of magnitude increase in the outgassing of methane from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf from 2010 to 2011.

Arctic methane emergency

Both the Greenland Ice Cap and the Antarctic Ice Cap are losing ice by the tens of gigatons every year, at a rate that is increasing.

In spite of a double La Nina, 2011 still turned out to be at least the 11th warmest year on record.

The fraud is all on your side, Walleyes.






Yap, yap, yap, you're a tired old dog who can't learn a new trick to save his worthless life olfraud. Arctic ice and Antarctic ice decreasing you say? Not according to the people who actually watch it. As usual you are full of horse poo.
 

Attachments

  • $ssmi1_ice_ext.png
    $ssmi1_ice_ext.png
    35.8 KB · Views: 61
  • $S_timeseries.jpg
    $S_timeseries.jpg
    48 KB · Views: 51
Cool West.......but the fact is, this is all just gravy. The alarmist crusade is falling like a stone in water when it comes to applying their science to public policy. Nobody gives a shit........and at this point, its not even debatable anymore.

Lol........I said more than 10 years ago that this would all be exposed as a fad. The only place people give a rats ass anymore is in the outer limits of the internet galaxy. Nowhere else.




What you say is true but the fraudsters are now in an all out push to try and get their gravy train back. That's why we have to keep pounding their fraudulent science till they finally either give up and just quit, or are sitting in jail cooling their heels for the massive theft they have perpetrated.


ANd funny West...........with every push, we have a new green energy company going belly up. Energy companies that received tens of millions of taxpayer money by the way.........the list grows every week.

I cant wait for the election debates!:2up: They cant come fast enough for me!!!:rock::rock::rock::rock::rock:
 
Before AGW it was ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC fact that as CO2 increases in an environment it has a diminishing effect on heat retention. It is also an established fact that CO2 FOLLOWS rising temperatures, it does not precede them.

CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, depending on whose numbers you use. Using the more conservative numbers and applying it to the log scale, that's still an effective 11% increase in forcing and should be considered significant and certainly not negligible.

As for the order of CO2, that depends on the same proxy data used to bash the hockey stick! I prefer primary data, CO2 levels, energy fluxes, etc., with an eye towards Conservation of Energy and the recognition that a positive imbalance in a given sphere will result in rising temperatures.
 
Before AGW it was ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC fact that as CO2 increases in an environment it has a diminishing effect on heat retention. It is also an established fact that CO2 FOLLOWS rising temperatures, it does not precede them.

CO2 has gone up 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, depending on whose numbers you use. Using the more conservative numbers and applying it to the log scale, that's still an effective 11% increase in forcing and should be considered significant and certainly not negligible.

As for the order of CO2, that depends on the same proxy data used to bash the hockey stick! I prefer primary data, CO2 levels, energy fluxes, etc., with an eye towards Conservation of Energy and the recognition that a positive imbalance in a given sphere will result in rising temperatures.


The Hockey Stick!!!

How ghey?!!!!!!


Minus 51 degrees in Fairbanks Alaska this AM..............LMBO!:lol::lol::lol:




LOSING
 

Forum List

Back
Top