Princeton Physicist On ‘Global Warming’: ‘We Should Not Bow To Religious Dogma Disguised As Science’

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2013
91,832
62,720
2,605
Right coast, classified
What an idiot. Everyone knows Bill Nye is the go-to expert who should be listened to.

The media and hostile congressional interrogators have routinely asked nominees for high positions in the new Trump administration some variant of the question, “Is climate change a hoax?”

Nominees should answer forthrightly, “No!”

Climate has been changing since the Earth was formed — some 4.5 billion years ago. Climate changes on every time scale — whether decades, centuries or millennia.

The climate of Greenland was warm enough for farming around the year 1100 A.D., but by 1500, the Little Ice Age drove Norse settlers out. There is no opportunity for a hoax, since climate change is so well documented by historical and geophysical records.

But none of the climate change of the past was due to humans. The very minor warming in the past few centuries is mostly from non-human causes as well.

What is really being asked is, “Do you agree with the party line of the previous administration, that continued emissions of carbon dioxide will destroy the planet unless the people of the world do exactly what they are told?”

The answer to this question should also be a resounding no; we should not bow to religious dogma disguised as science.

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines the word “hoax” as “to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous.”

So hoax is a pretty good description of the article of faith that nominees are being asked to endorse: that carbon dioxide is supposedly dangerous “carbon pollution.”

All living creatures respire huge amounts of carbon dioxide every day. Carbon dioxide is essential to the growth of plants, which have been coping with a carbon dioxide famine for several tens of millions of years, an instant in geological time.

Keep reading…
 
Probably should cap our USMB time, since we are using electricity, most likely produced from oil, gas or coal.
 
Crazy old Happer again? Boring. Telling, that you can't get anyone who isn't senile and totally ignorant of the science.

His idiot train of logic is "Plants need CO2, so increasing CO2 can't be causing a problem". His conclusion in no way follows from his premise. What a maroon.
 
Crazy old Happer again? Boring. Telling, that you can't get anyone who isn't senile and totally ignorant of the science.

His idiot train of logic is "Plants need CO2, so increasing CO2 can't be causing a problem". His conclusion in no way follows from his premise. What a maroon.
Not to mention ignoranamus.

 

Forum List

Back
Top