The way they go on about "Co2 is vital for life!" makes me think these are not actual respected scientists.
It has all the makings of a scientifically illiterate soundbite from some climate change denying think-tank.
The way they go on about "Co2 is vital for life!" makes me think these are not actual respected scientists.
It has all the makings of a scientifically illiterate soundbite from some climate change denying think-tank.
Well at the moment it means a higher cost of living, less convenience, and more social systems. I agree with some of the sentiments of these scientists. Immediately thinking someone is paid off though because they have a differing interpretation of the data is a dark place to be in...
I used to be a big believer in MMCC but after the infamous "hockey stick" graph was debunked I'm not so sure.
Ok, so there's the world's evil elites trying to take over the world by introducing changes using the boogeyman of the global warming as their jack of all trades. The great majority of the qualified scientists are paid by them to agree on that, and to publish false papers that are made to look good by being filled with false information about everything. Also, it seems Al Gore's jet fuel is being paid by them too, this whole thing also seems to have ties with the UN and other worldwide organisations which are sure to seize power from, eh, us when the global warming when the governments and the nations bite the bait. We are yet to see how they do it, but we're pretty sure they will.
On the other hand, there's the brave Texas Public Policy Foundation fighting a lost fight for reason and liberty, with only so many allies at its side: a handful of scientists with their morals on the right place and a couple True American entrepreneurs that know how serious a threat all this is to our civil right and liberties. So they created the aforementioned institute to produce sound science in this world of darkness and lies, a beacon of hope in this future filled with dread.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...icy_Foundation
Continue the fight David, Charles, Richard, Bob and co. True Americans salute you!
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Which is local weather not what has been seen overall. Globally 2015 will be the hottest year on record. Oh and that means the second warmest year on record will be 2014. Yet the evidence deniers still deny. No doubt its a global conspiracy by thousands of scientists across dozens of different nations, both in the private and public sectors, because well, just because.
Last edited by alexw; 2015-11-20 at 04:19 PM.
Is this guy a real scientist? Has he ever read what these things mean? A polluant is a substance that is introduced into an environemental system such as, you know, the earth atmosphere, that was in a different concentration than before and such increase causes some sort of undesirable effect. -anything- can be a polluant. This guy has never worked with environemental theory and proably works on a field of study completelly unrelated to climatology.Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: 'Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?'
Edit: What a hack.
Last edited by Springrunner; 2015-11-20 at 04:25 PM.
Physicist from Princeton has a little clout. A meteorologist from MIT has a little more clout. When they can convince the other 99% of people who actually study this that their findings are more repeatable and accurate, I'm perfectly willing to change sides on this topic. Until then, I'm going with the reality that there are always outliers - especially from people who work in tangential fields.
This.
People spouting nonsense about how we are getting snow in November and shouting in all caps about the Illuminati lizard overlords are the definition of Idiocracy. You cite non scientific studies, biased sources, and flat out fear mongering, conspiracy theory loving, B.S. that anyone with an iota of critical thinking capability would instantly see right through. The overwhelming majority of scientific opinion, based on peer reviewed excruciatingly scrutinized data, believes that we are adversely affecting our climate, and the warming trend we are seeing over decades of recorded weather are a very credible and significant threat.
My favorite thing is "prominent scientists." How about "prominent religious leaders agree that Jesus is not the son of God." Quoting scientists from other fields as if "scientist" were a blanket expert on all things sciency... just like any religious leader is an expert on all religions and the validity of them, right?
Heres the bottom line. There are many discerning opinions on climate change. And big money interests biasing both sides of the conversation. To completely ignore the potential for climate change would be a mistake, as the effect MAY be irreversible. But to call climate change the biggest current threat to America is also a mistake and just sounds silly in todays current climate. So rationale steps should be taken to minimize greenhouse gas emissions without greatly affecting business or the energy economy. But going overboard is not the answer either, and is pushed by the Koch brother equivalents on the left. People who say big oil bad, Al Gore good are blind. They are both equally only interested in the economics their side supports.
We just need to study CO2 effects more. Things like Acid rain, smog, etc. are well known and are great reasons to limit coal and oil combustion for power, which the Boiler MACT (utility) rules are achieving. Trying to require carbon capture systems for GHG emissions at this point is over the top.
- - - Updated - - -
How is an MIT Climate scientist considered "from other fields". I think this is the same field as climate change. About as close to it as you can possibly get.
Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry
Bingo. That is the scientific method summed up in a nutshell. Scientists (I'm one by training) can't afford to do otherwise, as it would destroy the very basis of scientific advancement on which human progress is built. The scientific process was designed to be results neutral in terms of funding and in terms of outcome for this very reason. There are of course still a few bad eggs about but they are few and far between. Even the scientists working for the tobacco companies found that tobacco smoke was harmful, the managers simply lied about the results. Most non-scientists of course don't understand this, they don't understand how the search for truth is built into the very DNA of science and its scientists. Instead we are easily corrupted (supposedly) and so many have become part of a global conspiracy (supposedly).
For anyone looking to understand both sides, this is a good read. If you just think our world is collapsing because of bad GHG emissions, then don't read this:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/richard-...ics-1425513033
I think he meant the other, presumably vanilla physicist, Happer, and the Greenpeace guy. And, while Lindzen appears to have proper credentials, by all available evidence he doesn't live up to them. Bit of a shame, really. I like MIT.
The "Greenpeace guy" hasn't had anything to do with Greenpeace for decades.