The Death of a Hoax

[PLC1]

And if a credible scientist speaks out against global warming they get fired J Happened in Oregon.

I am sorry my only link is GB, I know you dont like him but it basically just shows the KVAL news report so it’s as good as any.



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/was-this-university-professor-fired-for-global-warming-skepticism/

At least that's what he and some bloggers think.

 

[dogtowner]

At least that's what he and some bloggers think.

the Godfather of Global Warming among others

 

[Pandora]

At least that's what he and some bloggers think.

If there is another reason the college and no one there will talk about it, even his coworkers who said they would be happy to write a letter of recommendation have now said they cannot because they fear to lose their jobs too. This same college did this same shit when Art Robinson dared to run against the democrat congressman Peter DeFazio.

In that case like this, they got rid of the person they didn’t like, the person who had nothing but raving reviews till they did something the college didn’t like then they got the boot without any explanation and the people at the college who once said they would speak for them suddenly backed out in fear.

But yes I am sure there is some other reason and or explanation....



I tell ya, the term “useful idiots” is more understandable every single day

 

[PLC1]

the Godfather of Global Warming among others

um.. to a degree:

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

AGW is real. It is happening now. It may not be the disaster predicted by Al Gore, however.

Some parts of the Earth may actually become more hospitable to humans

All of which in no way refutes the theory: The average temperature of the Earth is increasing, that increase is at least partly due to human activities, and is causing changes in local climates.

 

[GenSeneca]

Credible scientists have not changed their tune.

I was correct, PLC actually does believe a source must support AGW in order for him to consider it a credible source.

I look forward to hearing Pale's answer....

 

[palerider]

Credible scientists have not changed their tune.

Well there you are wrong PLC because a very large number of highly credible scientists have changed thier minds. Perhaps with your statement you are saying that no scientist could change his mind and remain credible no matter what the data say.

Off the top of my head I can think of several very high profile, very credible scientists who have given up the AGW hoax.

Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute for example. He is one of the top shelf climate modellers in the world. He has received multiple international climate study prizes and was a lead author for the IPCC on two of their 5 year reports. He came out and stated that there has been no warming to speak of for nearly 2 decades and there isn't likely to be any warming. He can see that the claims are not coming to pass because the basis for the claims is flawed.
Dr. Ivar Giaever. Remeber him? Nobel prize winner. Physicist. Quit the American Physical Society because of their false statement regarding the society's position on AGW.
Dr. Garth Paltridge. Retired chief research scientist at CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre. That seems to be a running theme among the really prominent scientists who come out against the hypothesis. Many of them are retired or nearly retired and openly admit that they can, at this point speak out because they no longer depend on grant money to buy their daily bread.
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes. Retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT climate physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.
Dr. John Christy, a climatologist of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA.
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas.
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State climatologist, a UN IPCC reviewer, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences.
Dr. Vincent Gray, New Zealand chemist and climate researcher.
Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans.
Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998.
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.
Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland.
Dr. Hans Jelbring, Swedish Climatologist of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
Dr. John Reid, Atmospheric Physicist 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.
Dr. William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Bracket professor of physics, Princeton University.
Dr. Leonard Weinstein, 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and presently a senior research fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center astrophysicist.
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, emeritus professor of physics, and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Dr. Bjarne Andresen, physicist, and professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dr. Ian D. Clark, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, University of Ottawa, Canada.

And I could go on ad nauseum. The fact is, PLC that the vast majority of scientists aren't onthe bandwagon. That idiot 97 or 98% consensus figure is a hoax in itself.

There are still some questioning details.

Far more than "some" PLC. The basic science is at question and therefore everything that has built upon that basic science is called into question, and like it or not, the whole field is falling apart and at this time is being held together by a concentrated effort by the mainstream media and leftist politicians. When actual observable, repeatable, experimental work is demonstrating that there is, in fact, no greenhouse effect as described by climate science, it becomes obvious that AGW is a fraud.

Very few actual scientists are questioning the basic theory any more.

There is no theory PLC. Another gross error on the part of you believers. Most of you are not even aware of what is required of a claim in order for it to be called a theory. Here, have a look:

Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The first clue that AGW is not a theory is that there has never been a single laboratory experiment performed that shows that an increase of 100, 200, 300, or even 500 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause any warming whatsoever.

The second clue is that no accurate predictions are being made via the "hypothesis". As each progressive generation of predictions fail, a whole new set is manufactured which also never come to pass.

Hypothesis - A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability.

AGW is barely even a hypothesis as it is not really the basis of any experiments to confirm its validity. It is nothing more than a statement upon which numerous outrageous and false claims have been made.

It is up to a few people on the internet who think they have thought of something that real scientists have not. [./quote]

Have you ever noticed that your entire argument is just one logical fallacy after another literally sprinkled with untruth? The list above puts the lie to that particular bit of dishonesty/logial fallacy. Do you think that I have come up with my objections on my own? My objections are based on the work of very high caliber scientists who can demonstrate the flaws in climate science with one hand tied behind thier backs. My objections are based on the work of actual scientists, not climate pseudoscientists. Truthfully PLC, have you ever looked at the educational requirements to receive a degree in climate science? It is pitiful. One semester of calculus, one semester of general physics, one semester of general chemistry. Climate science is not a hard science. It is a joke and to suggest that climate scientists are true scientists is pathetically laughable.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

There is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science. There is an atmospheric thermal effect but it is larger than the greenhouse effect claimed by climate science and is not dependent upon the atmospheric composition for anythnig beyond atmospheric mass. CO2 has no capacity to store, or trap IR. Its absorption and emission spectra tell us, without question that it absorbs a few very narrow bands of IR (mostly overlapped by water) and then emits what it absorbs immediately in a different wavelenght than it was absorbed contrary to your unphysical "wiki" claim of an impossible process.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

Water vapor is the only gas in the atmosphere that can absorb and retain energy, but it is no more a greenouse gas than CO2 since there is no greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.

So is methane.

Methane, like CO2 has no mechanism by which to store energy. It absorbs and emits what it absorbs immediately. IR, being light travels at, or near, the speed of light in the atmosphere and simply can not be slowed down. It passes through molecules at or near the speed of light and continues on its way at or near the speed of light.

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

Without the greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, Earth would be too cold to support life. Those are facts, not affected by wishful thinking.

Again, a positively idiotic statement demonstrative of someone who hasn't the slightest clue regarding science. Consider Jupiter and Saturn. Incredible temepratures exist within those atmospheres even though they are far from the sun and are composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. Those are certainly not greenhouse gasses and yet very high temperatures can be found there. Refer to the ideal gas laws, not the greenhouse effect if you want an explanation.

If you decend into the atmosphere of jupiter or saturn, or venus for that matter to a depth where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that of earth, the temperature will be nearly identical to that of earth because of the properties of gas explained by the idea gas laws, not because of any greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.

Global warming is not political. Science doesn't give a rip what the politicians and pundits want to believe.

Of course it is and anyone who can ignore the billions upon billions of dollars that government is pouring into it with a hope of extracting more political power from their investment is a fool. What else besides climate science do you believe would be immune to corruption as the result of the infusion of billions upon billions upon billions of government dollars.

So, go ahead. Believe what you want. It really doesn't matter anyway.

I don't "believe". I hold a position based on the laws of physics and observable, repeatable, known scientific fact. I can point to actual evidence to support my position.

Here PLC, is an easy chance to validate your position. With all the so called evidence you claim and the so called scientific concensus, surely this information should be readily at your disposal. Answer one question and your position changes from one of faith to one of actual scientific merit. Ready? Here goes:

Name one physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.
Off the top of my head, I can name 3 that say it is not possible. The second law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, and the Stefan-Boltzman laws. The first law of thermodynamics also suggests strongly that a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science is not possible. So lets hear it. Which physical law supports and predicts your greenhouse effect. That is the most basic science possible and as you will see, if you bother to try and look for an answer, it has never been answered by climate science. The claims are based on assumptions, not actual science.

 

[palerider]

I was correct, PLC actually does believe a source must support AGW in order for him to consider it a credible source.

I look forward to hearing Pale's answer....

Circular reasoning at its best. The credible science supports AGW but only science that supports AGW is credible. If you are going to believe in AGW and actually argue in favor of it, you must be willing to throw logic out the window and immerse yourself in logical fallacy.

 

[Gipper]

Circular reasoning at its best. The credible science supports AGW but only science that supports AGW is credible. If you are going to believe in AGW and actually argue in favor of it, you must be willing to throw logic out the window and immerse yourself in logical fallacy.

....and believe whatever the lib MSM tells you...to fail to recognize the leftist/statist plot behind AGW is to fail to comprehend the most elementary concepts...anyone who claims all scientists or all credible scientists believe AGW is real, proves they are uninformed.

If one gets all their information from liberal sources, one naturally believes AGW is real.

 

[palerider]

....and believe whatever the lib MSM tells you...to fail to recognize the leftist/statist plot behind AGW is to fail to comprehend the most elementary concepts...anyone who claims all scientists or all credible scientists believe AGW is real, proves they are uninformed.

If one gets all their information from liberal sources, one naturally believes AGW is real.

The thing that is most sad, and alas, humorous about the warmist's belief that science is overwhelmingly on their side is that it is exactly 180 degrees out of kilter. One need only look at projects like the global warming petition project to see first hand that the vast majority of scientists are not on board and that those who espouse the AGW hoax are in fact, a very very small minority of the world's scientists. While a few "ringers" have been caught out on lists like the global warming petition project, it is undeniable fact that the ringers are very few and very far between. The vast bulk of the 31,000 scientists who have signed that particular project have been vetted and found to be legitimate.

In that project alone more than 3,800 atmospheric and environmental scientists have voiced an opposition to the AGW hoax. Scientists whose fields of study relate directly to the study of climate science.

More than 5,800 physicists have signed the project on objections to the basic science upon which the AGW hoax is built. These are people who are highly trained in the properties of gasses, liquids, and solids who are more than qualified to determine if fundamental physical laws have been violated in the proposition of the AGW hypothesis.

More than 4,800 chemists have voiced an opposition to the basic science as well and chemistry, as opposed to climate science is in fact a hard science. Chemists are imminently qualified to examine and pass judgement on the basic science upon which the claims of climate science rest.

Among those who have signed are more than 9,000 who hold a PhD in a scientific field.

The sad fact for warmers is that they would be hard pressed to name any credible scientist onboard with the AGW hypothesis who does not depend on grant money for his daily bread while literally tens of thousands of working scientists who don't depend on grant money in any way are openly naming the hoax for what it is.

By the same to token, I would wager that most warmers are blissfully unaware of the 1,100 + published, peer reviewed papers that are in opposition to the AGW hypothesis/hoax.

 

[Cruella]

The sad fact for warmers is that they would be hard pressed to name any credible scientist onboard with the AGW hypothesis who does not depend on grant money for his daily bread while literally tens of thousands of working scientists who don't depend on grant money in any way are openly naming the hoax for what it is.

I think that is EXACTLY what this whole global warming BS is about. All these selfserving academic elitists probably couldn't take their fancy degrees into the real world and make an honest living, so they have to perpetuate this hoax on the rest of us. How many industries have sprung up over this crap? No different than all the trial attorneys out suing everything they can to drum up business. It's no wonder it costs so much to live in this country and we have higher unemployment now and people are getting poorer, thanks to these selfish charlatans.

 

[Gipper]

The thing that is most sad, and alas, humorous about the warmist's belief that science is overwhelmingly on their side is that it is exactly 180 degrees out of kilter. One need only look at projects like the global warming petition project to see first hand that the vast majority of scientists are not on board and that those who espouse the AGW hoax are in fact, a very very small minority of the world's scientists. While a few "ringers" have been caught out on lists like the global warming petition project, it is undeniable fact that the ringers are very few and very far between. The vast bulk of the 31,000 scientists who have signed that particular project have been vetted and found to be legitimate.

In that project alone more than 3,800 atmospheric and environmental scientists have voiced an opposition to the AGW hoax. Scientists whose fields of study relate directly to the study of climate science.

More than 5,800 physicists have signed the project on objections to the basic science upon which the AGW hoax is built. These are people who are highly trained in the properties of gasses, liquids, and solids who are more than qualified to determine if fundamental physical laws have been violated in the proposition of the AGW hypothesis.

More than 4,800 chemists have voiced an opposition to the basic science as well and chemistry, as opposed to climate science is in fact a hard science. Chemists are imminently qualified to examine and pass judgement on the basic science upon which the claims of climate science rest.

Among those who have signed are more than 9,000 who hold a PhD in a scientific field.

The sad fact for warmers is that they would be hard pressed to name any credible scientist onboard with the AGW hypothesis who does not depend on grant money for his daily bread while literally tens of thousands of working scientists who don't depend on grant money in any way are openly naming the hoax for what it is.

By the same to token, I would wager that most warmers are blissfully unaware of the 1,100 + published, peer reviewed papers that are in opposition to the AGW hypothesis/hoax.

Amazing and yet warmers still believe even when told this information. They can't wrap their little minds around the fact that the MSM and the liberal elite have been lying and misrepresenting the facts. There must be a stupid gene that some humans possess. If the elites tell a stupid gene person something, they dutifully believe. Fat Al Gore says the debate is over...all scientists believe in AGW...and the warmers believe a man of such low character as Fat Albert....Its f-ing CRAZY!!!

Is it any wonder the human existence is so screwed up when we have ignorance everywhere?

Sadly....You Can't Fix Stupid.

 

[PLC1]

Circular reasoning at its best. The credible science supports AGW but only science that supports AGW is credible. If you are going to believe in AGW and actually argue in favor of it, you must be willing to throw logic out the window and immerse yourself in logical fallacy.

That's all quite a long answer.

I did check out the first name:

Mojib Latif

Background

Mojib Latif is not a skeptic of climate change. He has noted that many skeptics have incorrectly cited his studies as proof that climate change is not happening.

Desmogblog (http://s.tt/19kMY)​

​

When a long diatribe begins with a falsehood, what is the chance that there is some nugget of truth somewhere further down?​

Once in a while, you do make me think that, perhaps, just maybe, you've stumbled upon something that might support your hypothesis. Then, when I check it out, it never seems to support anything but the scientific community.​

​

 

[palerider]

When a long diatribe begins with a falsehood, what is the chance that there is some nugget of truth somewhere further down?

And your argument continues to be dishonest. Who is claiming that the climate is not changing? The man states in your interview that we must expect to see natural fluctuations. No mention there of CO2. No one put him in the OISM register. He did that himself because he doesn't believe that the activities of man are the cause of climate change. Note that your article misrepresents the entire skeptical argument. No one that I know of has ever argued that the climate is, or should be static. The argument is that the changing climate is not due to the activiites of man.

Clearly you didn't read any of the comments to the discussion. Do you have a single honest argument in your repitore?

Once in a while, you do make me think that, perhaps, just maybe, you've stumbled upon something that might support your hypothesis. Then, when I check it out, it never seems to support anything but the scientific community.

​

​

In typical fashion, you don't know the difference between a valid argument and a hole in the ground. I merely pointed out those scientists to illustrate to you that actual scientists and quite a few high powered ones at that are not on the climate change wagon. No number would make the argument against AGW valid. Any argument pointing at numbers of scientists who support or dispute this or that is a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority, or a bandwagon fallacy. ​

​

Science is the reason I am a skeptic. The science upon which AGW is based is flawed. You prove it every time you post and don't name a single law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science. If the science were sound, you should be able to point to numerous credible science cites pointing out how the laws of physics support and even predict exactly the greenhouse effect described by climate science but alas, no such sites exist. The fact is that the warmist elite avoid public discussion with actual scientists like vampires avoid daylight.​

Like gipper says, you can't fix stupid and apparently you can't expect honesty from a warmer.​

 

[PLC1]

And your argument continues to be dishonest. Who is claiming that the climate is not changing?

I believe the original statement was about scientists changing their tune, i.e., stating that global warming theory was wrong. The list of scientists who allegedly had done so started out with one who had not.

Obviously, I have a life, so don't spend time looking up all of the false flags. One is enough.

Now, it appears, that you're saying that no one is claiming that the climate is not changing. It seems it is you, not the scientists, who are changing their tune.

In typical fashion, you don't know the difference between a valid argument and a hole in the ground. I merely pointed out those scientists to illustrate to you that actual scientists and quite a few high powered ones at that are not on the climate change wagon.

and yet the first name you mention is "on the climate change wagon."

The rest of the list, then, is suspect as well.