Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Scientists from MIT and Princeton diss man made global warming nonsense


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

Say, they agree with the rest of us with common sense.

 

It's getting really tough on the mmgw honkers to continue the jaw flappy.

 

 

http://personalliberty.com/climate-scientists-alarm-global-warming-based-nonsense-irrational-best/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Did some digging into this MIT guy, turns out he was getting paid $2,500 "PER DAY" about 10 years ago to consult for companies like Exxon. I can't copy/paste the link here but someone did some real homework on this guy and came up with all the energy companies this guy has worked for and gotten funded by. I'm all for a scientist with a clean background coming forward with real evidence, but all this guy seems to be doing is scoffing at climate change then saying HEY, I'm from fucking MIT!! People from MIT are obviously highly respected but not for long if they make unsubstantiated claims based solely on their own perceived status within the scientific community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, you think he was getting grants from the UN and Obamao?

 

You accept all the pro-mmgw scientists with funding from Obamao's hand,

and the UN, etc etc....

 

but anything else funding research.... is no good? hahaha.

 

Try to think before knee jerking.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

 

http://godfatherpolitics.com/6783/global-warming-fear-is-about-money-not-science/

 

and, finally.....

 

read all this, Cleve, and btw, you should stop your desperate attempts at fighting on the internet.

 

You do the same thing on the Browns board, and woody is also the same woodpecker on both boards.

 

Mind you, I am far more myself on the Brownsboard. I don't post that much, it's more fun to read and

learn other's opinons about the Browns subjects....

 

Here, with all the personal aggression towards anybody who is consevative and doesn't agree with you liberals.....

 

I determine that free speech will continue on this board, despite the liberals like you who can't stand

to be proven wrong time and time again.

 

Ignoring the funding by pro-mmgw entities like the UN and Al Gore, Obamao, etc etc....

 

then falsely posturing offense that anti-mmgw scientists are funded by companies etc...

 

is typically extremely dishonest - just emotional knee jerking, complete devoid of any principle-based

reasoning.

 

Now STFU with all the antagonism toward posters with political, and football-related opinions that you don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, with all the personal aggression towards anybody who is consevative and doesn't agree with you liberals.....

 

I determine that free speech will continue on this board, despite the liberals like you who can't stand

to be proven wrong time and time again.

.

 

Now STFU with all the antagonism toward posters with political, and football-related opinions that you don't like.

I laughed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is stupid - "aggression" is not self-defense.

 

Yes, you are a liberal woodypeckerhead and you

don't understand self-defense.

 

Aggression = "NOT ACCEPTABLE"....

 

Self-Defense = "ACCEPTABLE".

 

Now stop emotionally knee jerking long enough to see the difference....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work in the industry where people make millions off of natural resources and even we speak openly at the office now about man made global warming being real. I trust the science nerds at the office who have everything to lose who still say that it is legit. Everyone absolves themselves of guilt by knowing that all of the developing countries don't give a shit about climate regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, you think he was getting grants from the UN and Obamao?

 

You accept all the pro-mmgw scientists with funding from Obamao's hand,

and the UN, etc etc....

 

but anything else funding research.... is no good? hahaha.

 

Try to think before knee jerking.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

 

http://godfatherpolitics.com/6783/global-warming-fear-is-about-money-not-science/

 

and, finally.....

 

read all this, Cleve, and btw, you should stop your desperate attempts at fighting on the internet.

 

You do the same thing on the Browns board, and woody is also the same woodpecker on both boards.

 

Mind you, I am far more myself on the Brownsboard. I don't post that much, it's more fun to read and

learn other's opinons about the Browns subjects....

 

Here, with all the personal aggression towards anybody who is consevative and doesn't agree with you liberals.....

 

I determine that free speech will continue on this board, despite the liberals like you who can't stand

to be proven wrong time and time again.

 

Ignoring the funding by pro-mmgw entities like the UN and Al Gore, Obamao, etc etc....

 

then falsely posturing offense that anti-mmgw scientists are funded by companies etc...

 

is typically extremely dishonest - just emotional knee jerking, complete devoid of any principle-based

reasoning.

 

Now STFU with all the antagonism toward posters with political, and football-related opinions that you don't like.

Do you not understand the freakishly biased conservative news sites (as in the only ones you post from) rely on dumbasses like you for clicks, views, and advertisements? Shunning mmgw is not about anything but MONEY. You'rE the butt of this board and I'm glad most here see through your bullshit.

 

Alright, gramps. Tell me about how I'm wrong and we know nothing here. I know it will make you feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dissing the source of the report is the fallback postion of

libs who are angry.

 

Don't be angry. The report simply talks about what the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS,\

from MIT and PRINCETON...are emphatically saying.

 

you cannot prove mmgw is absolute fact. And, when you admit that, you should,

but won't, admit that paying out the wazoo nationally, and corporately, and personally,

 

on a questionable, debated theory - is stupid, and completely politically motivated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dissing the source of the report is the fallback postion of

libs who are angry.

 

Don't be angry. The report simply talks about what the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS,\

from MIT and PRINCETON...are emphatically saying.

 

you cannot prove mmgw is absolute fact. And, when you admit that, you should,

but won't, admit that paying out the wazoo nationally, and corporately, and personally,

 

on a questionable, debated theory - is stupid, and completely politically motivated.

 

Just a little bit about Dr. Richard Lindzen. Take the source for what you will. Because sources do matter, Cal.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dissing the source of the report is the fallback postion of

libs who are angry.

 

 

 

Let me see if I understand this bit of sociopathology out of this little bit of nonsense from you......so climatologists who get their funding from the U.N=bad? But climatologist who was on the coal industries payroll, of all industries, is somehow indemnified from suspicions of being unbiased? This man accrued perhaps Millions of dollars in personal salary from that industry, forget about funding. Are you Retard?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you walter's stupid clone?

 

stop being an ignorant ass all the time?

 

It isn't the funding....it's the legitimacy

of the science.

 

It's just lib garbage' to whine about the funding of anti-mmgw scientists' works...

 

then completely ignore the funding of the UN and other liberal individuals and groups

of pro-mmgw scientists' works.

 

You can't have it both ways - grow up and get a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a little bit about Dr. Richard Lindzen. Take the source for what you will. Because sources do matter, Cal.


https://www.skeptica...ard_Lindzen.htm Blowe


******************************************************


really? you are using a site whose mantra is being skeptical about skeptics? and you


are complaining about sources?



Sources only matter when they reference anti-lib conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just a little bit about Dr. Richard Lindzen. Take the source for what you will. Because sources do matter, Cal.

https://www.skeptica...ard_Lindzen.htm Blowe

******************************************************

really? you are using a site whose mantra is being skeptical about skeptics? and you

are complaining about sources?

Sources only matter when they reference anti-lib conclusions.

 

You took the bait perfectly. This is exactly what you do every single time, source a republican news outlet as absolute truth. Maybe this can be a learning experience for you Cal.. my hope was that you can actually teach an old dog new tricks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you walter's stupid clone?

 

stop being an ignorant ass all the time?

 

It isn't the funding....it's the legitimacy

of the science.

 

It's just lib garbage' to whine about the funding of anti-mmgw scientists' works...

 

then completely ignore the funding of the UN and other liberal individuals and groups

of pro-mmgw scientists' works.

 

You can't have it both ways - grow up and get a clue.

 

In the article you posted is there 'any" credible scientific evidence this guy puts forward? That website is blocked at my work but I looked the guy up and as I previously stated, he doesn't offer much in the way of real contradictory evidence. He's picking and parsing tidbits from other findings to fit the narrative he wants to push. Then uses his status as an MIT guy to back up his own interpretations. Ok that's fine but you have to have something concrete otherwise you won't be an MIT guy for long.

 

As for the legitimacy of the science, please tell me why evidence accrued by scientists funded by the U.N is "tainted" when it says something you don't like but scientists funded by the energy industry are "legitimate science" cart blanche?

 

I can definitively state why I tend not to trust scientists from the energy sector who have been paid millions of personal salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and now, serious wisdom, and the truth from a PH D

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

 

Global Warming

“Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.

But first let’s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800′s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun, or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate.

Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

furthermore....

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

 

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

 

 

1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 & 2010 (Updates Previous 2009 U.S. Senate Report: “More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”)

 

INTRODUCTION: More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun. The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal - - which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists -- detonated upon on the international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded...There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!" See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! 'Climate 3 change - RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence...Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives' [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency." Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears: “We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium. “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems and has published peer-reviewed papers. “The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” -- Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences who has 4 published numerous peer-reviewed studies about the interaction of solar radiation with the Earth’s magnetic field. “Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.” "I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” -- Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, has published several peer-reviewed studies in biochemistry. Mumper's presentation was titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View.” “I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” -- Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [updated December 9, 2010] “The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.] “Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” -- Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer." “Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I 5 know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research. “We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering. “There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” -- Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” -- Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.” “The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.” -- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics. End Selected Excerpts # The rapidity of the global warming establishment's collapse would have been unheard of just two years ago. Prominent physicist Hal Lewis resigned from American Physical Society, calling "Global warming the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life." UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn was blunt about what Climategate revealed: "The case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...the whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed." Even the usually reliable news media has started questioning the global warming claims. Newsweek Magazine wrote in May 2010 about the "uncertain science" and how "climate researchers have lost the public's trust" from a "cascade of scandals" from the UN IPCC. Newsweek compared the leaders of the climate science community to "used-car salesmen. "Once celebrated climate researchers are feeling like the used-car salesmen" and the magazine noted that "some of IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations 6 were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles...Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments." For full list of Climategate related scandals See: Climate Scandals: List Of 94 Climate-Gates -- 94 climate-gates total -- 28 new gates -- 145 links to reports with details As the global warming edifice crumbled in 2010, the movement lost one of its leading lights due to the Climategate revelations. Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech, explained her defection from the global warming activist movement. "There is 'a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink...’ They are setting themselves up as secondrate scientists by not engaging,” Curry wrote in 2010. Curry critiqued the UN IPCC for promoting "dogma" and clinging to the "religious importance" of the IPCC's claims. "They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them," Curry lamented. "The IPCC assessment process had a substantial element of schoolyard bullies, trying to insulate their shoddy science from outside scrutiny and attacks by skeptics...the IPCC and its conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy," Curry wrote. Curry called the Climategate fallout nothing short of a "rather spectacular unraveling of the climate change juggernaut...I immediately realized that [Climategate] could bring down the IPCC...I became concerned about the integrity of our entire field...While my colleagues seemed focused on protecting the reputations of the scientists involved and assuring people that the 'science hadn't changed." [Note: Curry is not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] Also see: 'High Priestess of Global Warming' No More! Former Warmist Judith Curry Admits To Being 'Duped Into Supporting IPCC' - 'If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic'] [Note: There were many Cilmategate inquiries that sought to downplay Climategate, but they fell short of their goal and were labeled as nothing more than the "global warming establishment exonerating the global warming establishment." See here, here, and here. The InterAcademy Council (IAC) was the most competent of the inquires.] As new data and science continued to call into question man-made global warming claims, one of the movements leading fear promoters shocked the world by beginning to retreat from his dire predictions. Green guru James Lovelock warned in 2007 that, "Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic." Lovelock illustrates how the climate of the climate change movement has been transformed in the last year. In May 2010, Lovelock shocked the world by announcing: "Everybody might be wrong. Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out." Lovelock went even father by noting how the science of global warming is in its infancy and "we haven't got the physics worked out yet." "The great climate science centers around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet," Lovelock explained. Lovelock now openly praises skeptics and worries that climate fear promotion is akin to religion. In March of 2010, Lovelock said: "The skeptics have kept us sane...They have kept us from regarding climate science as a religion. It had gone too far that way." [Note: Lovelock is not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] [Note: Even the UN has grown more uncertain 7 about the science. See: UN Fears (More) Global Cooling Commeth! IPCC Scientist Warns UN: We may be about to enter 'one or even 2 decades during which temps cool' -- Admits 'Jury is still out' on ocean cycle's temp impact!] More woes for the movement were felt when left-leaning environmental activists began jumping ship. See: Left-wing Env. Scientist Denis Rancourt Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a 'corrupt social phenomenon...strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass' & Meet the green who doubts 'The Science': Environmentalist Peter Taylor 'explains why he's skeptical about manmade global warming — and why greens are so intolerant' & Activists at green festivals expressing doubts over man-made climate fears. “One college professor, confided to me in private conversation that, 'I'm not sure climate change is real,'” according to a report from the New York Green Festival. 2010 saw the once vaulted UN IPCC now become the object of ridicule and scrutiny. In June 2010, Climate Scientist Mike Hulme took apart a key claim. Hulme noted that claims such as "2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate" are disingenuous. Hulme noted that the key scientific case for Co2 driving global warming was reached by a very small gaggle of people. "That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields." [Note: Hulme is not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] In another blow to the UN IPCC's carefully crafted image, was Scientist Dr. William Schlesinger admission in that only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate. Schlesinger said, “Something on the order of 20 percent [of UN scientists] have had some dealing with climate.” By Schlesinger's own admission, 80% of the UN IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies. Also note, that climate requires a wide range of disciplines: See: 'There are more than 100 expert sub disciplines involved in climate change studies' & Science magazine confused about who is a 'prominent climate scientist' -- 'there is no specific climate discipline' & Claims of 'overwhelming majority' of scientists exposed as laughable! 'There are just 94 authors responsible for compiling the report in which...the [uN IPCC's] modeling case for alarm rests' The notion of climate "tipping points", popularized by former Vice President Al Gore and NASA Scientist James Hansen, became the object of derision as well in 2010. See: 190- year climate 'tipping point' issued -- Despite fact that UN began 10-Year 'Climate Tipping Point' in 1989! Climate Depot Factsheet on Inconvenient History of Global Warming 'Tipping Points' -- Hours, Days, Months, Years, Millennium -- Earth 'Serially Doomed' Once respected global warming stalwarts like NASA's James Hansen descended into political and ideological activism by being arrested multiple times protesting coal use. Hansen also endorsed a book which calls for '"ridding the world of Industrial Civilization". Hansen declared the author "has it right...the system is the problem." Hansen did this despite the fact that the book proposes '"razing cities to the ground,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....and it goes on and on, hundreds of pages.

 

referencing the following scientists:

 

Yours faithfully, The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali

  1. : Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired Vice-Chancellor and President, University of Canberra, Australia Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, U.S. William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000 Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Canada Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, UK; Editor, Energy & Environment journal Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S. Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., UNEP Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, U.S. Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand 311 David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, U.S. Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J., U.S. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, U.S. Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former Dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, U.S. Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Australia William Evans, PhD, Editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, U.S. Stewart Franks, PhD, Associate Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, New Zealand William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, U.S. Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, U.S. Louis Hissink M.Sc. M.A.I.G., Editor AIG News and Consulting Geologist, Perth, Western Australia 312 Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona, U.S. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, U.S.; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Russia Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, Sydney, NSW, Australia Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia, U.S. David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor "Climate Research" (03-05); Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007 William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, M.Sc. Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Professor of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands Professor R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, U.S. 313 Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant - power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand William Lindqvist, PhD, consulting geologist and company director, Tiburon, California, U.S. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S. A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S. Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, computer scientist, Melbourne, Australia Owen McShane, B. Arch., Master of City and Regional Planning (UC Berkeley), economist and policy analyst, joint founder of the International Climate Science Coalition, Director - Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Canada Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University, Canada Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden Lubos Motl, PhD, physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic John Nicol, PhD, physicist, James Cook University, Australia 314 Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Canada James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, U.S. Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Canada Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, U.S. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherlands Air Force R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, U.S. Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C., Canada Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA, U.S. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S. 315 Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC, U.S. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand Len Walker, PhD, power engineering, Pict Energy, Melbourne, Australia Edward J. Wegman, Bernard J. Dunn Professor, Department of Statistics and Department Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia, U.S. Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technology and Economics Berlin, Germany Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, energy consultant, Virginia, U.S. Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

now, even emotionally sold out to mmgw libs can see that

 

A. It isn't just me and a few others on the this board. STFU.

 

B. You libs are wrong.

 

C. When you started parroting "climate change" instead of "man made global warming"...

you made fools of yourselves.

 

D. You lose. You mmgw wonks are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...