Nobel Winning Scientist quits APS over Global Warming stance

[Vaelkyri]

Clearly you don't recognize /sarcasm..

I recognise sarcasm, the point stands true. Clearly you lack understanding of text in context.

and I repeat
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
fun interactive sliders, + solid data from a reliable source.

[Tartilus]

The only positive I see from global warming is that they started researching green energy early. Humans only produce 1% (maybe bit more now, was 1% few years ago) of total Co2. But ofcourse, we fuck up shitloads of nature so I think we are destroying our planet either way...but I'm happy with how we are dealing it for now.

The general argument aside, I just want to note that this is terrible logic. That human beings output a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide (I seem to recall that the statement is actually inaccurate, but I could be mistaken), is irrelevant; delicate systems do not require large disturbances in order to exhibit largeeffects.

If your DNA was 1% different, you'd be a dolphin.

Also, I'd note that Linus Pauling won two Nobel prizes, and still managed to come up with absolute insane nonsense (also in a field which was not his specialty) towards the end of his career. I don't mean to suggest that is what's happening here, only dispel any notion that a Nobel Prize qualifies the recipient to make brilliant statements in every conceivable field.

[Coombs]

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

fun interactive sliders.

The temperature slider looks just like the obesity slider on the CDC's site.

[Deleted]

No, you'd need a degree in entomology. And you obviously don't understand what logic means because that's not by my logic; that's by your wild illogical imagination.

Physics may be the basis of the idea of the howin the most remote sense, but climatology is the actual study of how global warming works. And I'm pretty sure even you can tell how many degrees physics is separated from climate even in your own statement. By your logic, knowing the biology of your vocal cords makes you an expert on linguistics, because the vocal cord is the basis of how we speak. And that's actually one less chain than your ridiculous idea.

The was nothing in what I said that you could retrieve logic from, infact

By your logic, knowing the biology of your vocal cords makes you an expert on linguistics

is plain dumb and has nothing to do with what I said in any way. I was not justifying what the Nobel Prize winner said in this thread, nor did I say he is allowed authority on what goes on with global warming because he has discovered attributes in certain materials. I was laughing at the fact that you think that any physician is not allowed an opinion on Global Warming or infact any sort of authority, do you not understand that a lot of physics experiments, studies and physicians are the reason we know so much about how global warming works and why or why not we should believe in it.

[Ulfhedinn]

Either a troll, stupid or just illiterate. This has been answered several times in this thread.

Uh I didn't see anyone say who studies energy. Care to show me who did?

[Coombs]

You know the thing is, while man-made global warming isn't something you can deny anymore (and it's not 'mild' either, that's pseudo science based on ideas like "it's still snowing in the winter, can't be that bad") there is indeed to much hysteria around the topic and the true science oftern goes under in all that hyperbolic nonsense.
But yeah, that comic is true - I don't see the problem with creating a healthier planet for humans to live on.

We should colonize space instead.

[Deleted]

What makes you think climatologists don't do that?

They may, or may not. But experts in the field of sun cycles are physicists, not climatologists. The same with radiation passing through clouds because of there wavelengths and not being able to get back out, which is studied in quantum physics

[Redmage]

I encourage everyone in this thread to google the letter mentioned in this article, that was written by 100 top scientists from all fields (including climatologists) who tried to convince obama and the UN that global warming is just alarmism being supported by fake information doctored up by greedy scientists. google the climate gate scandal, where a few dozen scientist where proven to be doing just that, falsifying information to make global warming look real.

This is not some tinfoil hat conspiracy shit, this is fact, global warming is a lie. it was just a theory that got way way out of hand when a bunch of greedy scientist, business men, and politicians realized they could make money off of it.

wake up people.

[champ3000]

He's a physicist. He has zero authority on anything to do with global warming, whether he is right or not. It's as relevant as thre Discovery Institute citing metrologists who rejects the theory of evolution. All in all a non-story, really.

---------- Post added 2011-09-15 at 04:04 PM ----------


A lot of people have opinions worth listening to. However winning a Nobel Prize in physics has no bearing on whether this opinion has any more value than "fake scientists" when it comes to the climate.

Do you even know what physicists do? I don't think so. And I'm not talking about scientists that disagree with him, that is fine, I am talking about the people on this board that think there "opinions" carry greater weight than real scientists.

[Wells]

google the climate gate scandal, where a few dozen scientist where proven to be doing just that, falsifying information to make global warming look real.

Would this be the scandal where 3 separate investigations cleared them?

[Art3x]

I recognise sarcasm, the point stands true. Clearly you lack understanding of text in context.

and I repeat
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
fun interactive sliders, + solid data from a reliable source.

Yeah, I'm the one with context issues.

Fun colors!

[Wells]

Do you even know what physicists do? I don't think so. And I'm not talking about scientists that disagree with him, that is fine, I am talking about the people on this board that think there "opinions" carry greater weight than real scientists.

Man I am going to throw up a nobel winner who disagrees with you in every thread now.

[Art3x]

I encourage everyone in this thread to google the letter mentioned in this article, that was written by 100 top scientists from all fields (including climatologists) who tried to convince obama and the UN that global warming is just alarmism being supported by fake information doctored up by greedy scientists. google the climate gate scandal, where a few dozen scientist where proven to be doing just that, falsifying information to make global warming look real.

This is not some tinfoil hat conspiracy shit, this is fact, global warming is a lie. it was just a theory that got way way out of hand when a bunch of greedy scientist, business men, and politicians realized they could make money off of it.

wake up people.

This ^, stupid 10 chars

[champ3000]

...you do realize your Avatar reads your location as "Underground bunker in Kentucky"?

...that's not helping your image any... just saying. ^_^

What are you trying to say? Is that a veiled insult that people from the South are stupid?

[mafao]

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

fun interactive sliders.

Very interesting site!

What irritates me: if the warming is man-made, why did the rapid increase of temperate began only in 80-ties? I was not aware of any "explosion" of industry at that time (maybe China though?)

[champ3000]

Man I am going to throw up a nobel winner who disagrees with you in every thread now.

Do it Wells!!! DO IT!!! Lol.. that would actually be a good way to win a debate.. whoever has the most Nobel Laureates on their side wins.. game over..

[Vaelkyri]

Uh I didn't see anyone say who studies energy. Care to show me who did?

Im leaning towars the 2nd option

I wonder what branch of science studies energy... How it moves about the universe....

< --physics.

He's a physicist. He has zero authority on anything to do with global warming

<-- answered.

If by some chance you didnt realise that then I apologise, but I very much doubt that was the case.

[Wells]

Very interesting site!

What irritates me: if the warming is man-made, why did the rapid increase of temperate began only in 80-ties? I was not aware of any "explosion" of industry at that time (maybe China though?)

It didn't really begin in the 80s though. Look at the chart.

[semaphore]

The was nothing in what I said that you could retrieve logic from, infact is plain dumb and has nothing to do with what I said in any way.

Of course you did. It amazes me that you fail to realise how ridiculous your claim was, and yet you know it's "plain dumb" as soon as I substituted biology for physics and vocal cord for global warming. It's the same logic. Physics explains how things work on a very fundamental level. Climatologists use that understanding and apply them to the specific topic of climate. While physics may technically be at the basis of global warming, knowing physics doesn't automatically mean you know how it works in relation to the climate. It's the same with biologists and linguists.

I was laughing at the fact that you think that any physician is not allowed an opinion on Global Warming or infact any sort of authority, do you not understand that a lot of physics experiments, studies and physicians are the reason we know so much about how global warming works and why or why not we should believe in it.

No, you're putting words into my mouth. There's a huge difference between opinion and authority. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Not everyone is an authority on everything they have an opinion about. You for example have an opinion on what physics do and I respect your right to that opinion. But you're still completely wrong.

Since you apparently don't like to debate me on things I actually said and instead just want to make up stuff, pretend I said them, and then laugh at how silly things you made up sounds, I can't be bothered replying to you further.

[Wells]

Do it Wells!!! DO IT!!! Lol.. that would actually be a good way to win a debate.. whoever has the most Nobel Laureates on their side wins.. game over..

http://planetsave.com/2010/05/07/255...imate-science/

I guess I win?