CO2 Has Almost No Effect on Global Temperature, Says Leading Climate Scientist

[Crick]

Potatoes?

#4 gravel?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Maybe a "bit"...but a "leading climate scientist" he AIN'T

He's a lot closer to a knowledgeable expert than anyone here so stuff it lemming

 

[Crick]

William Kininmonth, Wikipedia

Education​

Kininmonth has a B.Sc. from the University of Western Australia, a M.Sc. from Colorado State University, and a M.Admin. from Monash University. He has no published peer-reviewed research on climate change according to a search of 22,000 academic journals.

Activities​

He is listed as an "expert" on Kyoto issues at Envirotruth, was a member of Australia's delegation to U.N. climate treaty negotiations, and until 1998 was head of Australia's Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre for 12 years. Kininmonth is listed as an expert reviewer on the IPCC fourth assessment report , Working Group I He is also listed as 'Science Advisor' to the skeptic SPPI

In a letter to to The Age newspaper, Kininmonth wrote that "Greenhouse gases emit more radiation than they absorb and their direct impact is to cool the atmosphere. More greenhouse gases will not cause the atmosphere to warm..." This claim defies the fundamental laws of physics, critics have pointed out.

In 2010, Kininmonth published a paper in an obscure journal called Il Nuovo Saggiatore that concluded "...model projections of anthropogenic global warming are exaggerated and a doubling of CO² concentration is unlikely to see global temperatures exceed 1ºC."

I was unable to find his birth date but Kininmonth was first employed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in 1960. At an absolute minimum, he was 22 at that point, putting his birthdate in 1938 and his current age at approximately 85. That should be taken into consideration if tempted to take his word against that of every other scientist on the planet. The statement he made above in bold italics indicates a significant loss of his command of basic science.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

William Kininmonth, Wikipedia

Education​

Kininmonth has a B.Sc. from the University of Western Australia, a M.Sc. from Colorado State University, and a M.Admin. from Monash University. He has no published peer-reviewed research on climate change according to a search of 22,000 academic journals.

Activities​

He is listed as an "expert" on Kyoto issues at Envirotruth, was a member of Australia's delegation to U.N. climate treaty negotiations, and until 1998 was head of Australia's Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre for 12 years. Kininmonth is listed as an expert reviewer on the IPCC fourth assessment report , Working Group I He is also listed as 'Science Advisor' to the skeptic SPPI

In a letter to to The Age newspaper, Kininmonth wrote that "Greenhouse gases emit more radiation than they absorb and their direct impact is to cool the atmosphere. More greenhouse gases will not cause the atmosphere to warm..." This claim defies the fundamental laws of physics, critics have pointed out.

In 2010, Kininmonth published a paper in an obscure journal called Il Nuovo Saggiatore that concluded "...model projections of anthropogenic global warming are exaggerated and a doubling of CO² concentration is unlikely to see global temperatures exceed 1ºC."

I was unable to find his birth date but Kininmonth was first employed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in 1960. At an absolute minimum, he was 22 at that point, putting his birthdate in 1938 and his current age at approximately 85. That should be taken into consideration if tempted to take his word against that of every other scientist on the planet. The statement he made above in bold italics indicates a significant loss of his command of basic science.

His age is irrelevant. Unlike our potus some old fucks are sharp as a tac

 

[Crick]

His age is irrelevant. Unlike our potus some old fucks are sharp as a tac

And some are not. If he thought a molecule of CO2 could absorb more radiation than it would emit, he no longer has a good grasp of science basics.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And some are not. If he thought a molecule of CO2 could absorb more radiation than it would emit, he no longer has a good grasp of science basics.

There are great youtube channels you should watch/subscribe to instead of reading books published eons ago. We now have proof of galaxies OLDER than the existence of the universe. We have other oddities discoverd that defy the laws of KNOWN physics.

Our "knowledge" is basically infantile

 

[Dagosa]

Your grasp on reality is tenuous. Seek help.

No worth while reply….

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Six ancient 'universe breaker' galaxies discovered

The galaxies date back to within 600 million years of the Big Bang.

news.sky.com

Settled science right?

We know nothing

 

[Crick]

There are great youtube channels you should watch/subscribe to instead of reading books published eons ago.

You haven't the faintest idea what I read, listen to or watch. And YouTube is not where I would go in search of good science.

We now have proof of galaxies OLDER than the existence of the universe.

No we do not. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. We have evidence that indicate such things.

We have other oddities discovered that defy the laws of KNOWN physics.

And what do you take from that? That Kininmonth might know basic physics better than the rest of the planet?

Our "knowledge" is basically infantile

Since everything you know is a subset of the sum total of our knowledge, you have absolutely no way to make any quantitative judgements on the matter.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You haven't the faintest idea what I read, listen to or watch. And YouTube is not where I would go in search of good science.

No we do not. There are no proofs in the natural sciences. We have evidence that indicates such things.

And what do you take from that? That Kininmonth might know basic physics better than the rest of the planet?

Since everything you know is a subset of the sum total of our knowledge, you have absolutely no way to make any quantitative judgements on the matter.

Your use of vocabulary does not make you right nor prove your points.
And the youtube channels are from scientists at prestigious universities ya boomer

 

[Crick]

Your use of vocabulary does not make you right nor prove your points.

I use it to communicate. So do most people. If you were talking about my final sentence, I suggest you get through the vocabulary and examine the logic. Unless you know all the things we do not know, you cannot say what portion we do know. Ya know?

And the youtube channels are from scientists at prestigious universities ya boomer

I'm happy for you, but it's still not where I would go for good science info. Go to Google and preface your searches with "Scholarly articles on..."

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I use it to communicate. So do most people. If you were talking about my final sentence, I suggest you get through the vocabulary and examine the logic. Unless you know all the things we do not know, you cannot say what portion we do know. Ya know?

I'm happy for you, but it's still not where I would go for good science info. Go to Google and preface your searches with "Scholarly articles on..."

Google? Lol nope. I don't want filtered bullshit

 

[Crick]

Google? Lol nope. I don't want filtered bullshit

So, what search engine do you use?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So, what search engine do you use?

I don't. I watch scientists, schoolers and theorists online.
Google is filtered shit and depending on what you're looking for the results will be whomever paid the most to be bumped in the search results. And I know this because I paid to be bumped on my business for years. And if you don't think universities and other organizations pay to get a higher placement you're gullible

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Avi Lobe
Event Horizon
Anton Petrov
Ancient Architects
UnchartedX
History of the Universe
Andean Megalothic
Kosmo
Pre History Decoded

Just a few of the channels I watch regularly. A variety of opinions from both sides of History & science

 

[bripat9643]

No worth while reply….

Can you translate that into English?

 

[Dagosa]

Can you translate that into English?

I English your second or third language ?

 

[Crick]

I don't. I watch scientists, schoolers and theorists online.

Do you really think that's a reliable source of valid information?

Google is filtered shit

What do you mean by that?

and depending on what you're looking for the results will be whomever paid the most to be bumped in the search results.

That is true of businesses. My wife has a small one and Google has offered her better coverage for money. That is not true of scholarly article searches.

And I know this because I paid to be bumped on my business for years.

But, as I noted, that was a business, not a scientific study.

And if you don't think universities and other organizations pay to get a higher placement you're gullible

Well, that is your assumption. Have you ever noticed that some of the results you get from a search will identify themselves as "Sponsored". Have you noticed that they are typically not the most relevant candidates for your search terms? Have you ever noticed that you can simply scroll past them and get the actual, objective search results?

 

[watchingfromafar]

This climate debate is great.

At our current oil consumption rate, we will suck it all up within the next 30 years while at the same time we are trying to switch to renewables.

It is amazing, both efforts are independent of each other yet together they accomplish the same goal.

Saving the human race.

-

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Do you really think that's a reliable source of valid information?

What do you mean by that?

That is true of businesses. My wife has a small one and Google has offered her better coverage for money. That is not true of scholarly article searches.

But, as I noted, that was a business, not a scientific study.

Well, that is your assumption. Have you ever noticed that some of the results you get from a search will identify themselves as "Sponsored". Have you noticed that they are typically not the most relevant candidates for your search terms? Have you ever noticed that you can simply scroll past them and get the actual, objective search results?