NOBEL Prize Winners Say NO to AGW........

[TyroneSlothrop]

Why don't you show the questions the 97% agreed on?

why don't you show what you have to support that only Exxon affiliated posters tell the truth..show me nut bag..

Funny how you make a point and can't even validate the claim. So typical warmer's rants

what the hell are you talking about ...go back over the thread and read my posts ...

 

[jc456]

A new friend reminded me of the video above, where Joe Bast, Chief of the Climate and Tobacco denying Heartland Institute, was confronted with his own past affirmations of Tobacco’s safety – wherein he first feigned a memory lapse, then, when confronted with his actual words, agreed that, yes, all that talk about tobacco risks was way overblown. Great work by journalist Lee Fang.

Here is a tobacco cancer denier and a Climate change denier too...nice Science double play LOL

More gobble -digoop and nothing about the OP. Ad home

 

[jc456]

Conspiracy Theorists Are More Likely to Doubt Climate Science Mother Jones

In a recent study of climate blog readers, Lewandowksy and his colleagues found that the strongest predictor of being a climate change denier is having a libertarian, free-market world view. Or as Lewandowsky put it in our interview, "The overwhelming factor that determined whether or not people rejected climate science is their worldview or their ideology." This naturally lends support to the "motivated reasoning" theory—a conservative view about the efficiency of markets impels rejection of climate science because if climate science were true, markets would very clearly have failed in an very important instance.

[Westwall rejects Science because of his Right wing dogma]

But separately, the same study also found a second factor that was a weaker, but still real, predictor of climate change denial—and also of the denial of other scientific findings such as the proven link between HIV and AIDS. And that factor was conspiracy theorizing. Thus, people who think, say, that the Moon landings were staged by Hollywood, or that Lee Harvey Oswald had help, are also more likely to be climate deniers and HIV-AIDS deniers.

"Clearly, for a number of people…conspiratorial thinking determines their rejection of science," explained Lewandowsky in our interview.


[Westwall is on board with there being a conspiracy involving thousands of Scientist who want to ride in a Trillion dollar gravy train]

conclusion Westwall is both dogmatic and paranoid

Love your selfie. Reynolds wrap or Sam"s version?

 

[jc456]

Non-sequiter, Ad-hom, personal attacks and outright lying are the argumentation methods of the climatologists.

And they wonder why no one takes them seriously any more.

Oh you mean ad hominem like when you called me a "dickhead" and now you are whining and crying hhahhahahahahh...that is why I have zero respects for you Right wing blow hards.you launched a personal attack on all Scientist who agree with Global warming...they are just money grubbers that was your argument..,why was that your argument ? because its you who are a Dick head... and a cry baby...Right wing douche.

You made a claim that money drove the sceptic movement. I countered by showing orders of magnitude more money were at stake for the AGW supporters.

You're not very good at this are you?

No, he's not

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

For you Right winger the word "anthropogenic" means caused by folk's activities...us humans

Of more than 4,000 academic papers published over 20 years, 97.1% agreed that climate change is anthropogenic

Climate research nearly unanimous on human causes survey finds Environment The Guardian

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The title of the OP is "NOBEL Prize Winners Say NO to AGW"..the source of the claims made in the OP is this story on Climate depot

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is Ridiculous Dead Wrong on Global Warming Climate Depot

Climate Depot, .. sole purpose is to spread misinformation about climate change, is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative think tank which has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, and foundations which challenge climate science.
Marc Morano is the executive director of ClimateDepot.com,

Morano is considered a central player in orchestrating the Climategate scandal. Weeks before the 2009 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, a hacker stole a large amount of files, including private data and emails, from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The data was then shared with climate skeptics, including Morano. These skeptics went on to cherry-pick information and sound bites from the emails in an effort to indict climate scientists for deliberately manipulating data and misleading the public.

In less than 48 hours, Climategate became the top story in international news. During the scandal,Morano said, "I seriously believe we should kick them [climate scientists] while they're down. They deserve to be publicly flogged." Multiple independent investigations have found no fraudulent activity, and all of the scientists have since been exonerated. Climategate helped seed doubt in public opinion leading up to the biggest climate negotiations in world history.
Who is Marc Morano - Greedy Lying Bastards

 

[westwall]

If you are like the Wing nut Westwall you believe in a vast conspiracy involving 97 percent of actual Climate Scientist trying in some nebulous never explained manner to access "Trillions of Dollars"....If you are like Westwall you believe being affiliated to Heartland and Exxon means you are a true objective scientist...If you point out that Heartland Chief is a nut bag who thinks smoking tobacco is health he says that such a fact is irrelevant to Heartland credibility...when you point out his big star Scientist a non Climate scientist also works for Heartland he thinks that is an ad hominem attack ...

If you're a brainless drone only capable of spewing propaganda like our dear sloppy here, you will not be able to understand the numbers involved. But here is the ACTUAL UN report that delineates the hows and what for's of the 76 TRILLION DOLLARS they wish to steal from the people of this world.

And what do we get for that massive expenditure? The possibility that we MAY be able to reduce the global temperature by ONE degree in 100 years....maybe.

And stupid, anti science morons like sloppy here will bend over and spread their cheeks wide because they are so stupid they can't understand the difference between facts, and bullshit.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

Facts are facts and you have none.

Fact number one

Heartland Institute has Zero Scientific credibility

Fact Number two
your big scientist expert has never ever written any papers on Climate ...never

Fact number 3...Consensus
I have presented links showing that a survey of Climate Scientific papers has shown no papers presented denying Climate change

Fact Number Four
The Japanese Meteorological Agency'
The UK Meteorological Agency
NASA and NOAA in the US
97 percent of Climate Scientist
Pope Francis
all agree with me

Fact number one. Appeals to Authority are logic fails. Period.

Fact number two, you have never addressed the science one time, nor have you presented actual scientific facts, you have presented OPINIONS, learn the difference before you try and discuss science with a scientist.

Fact number three. "Consensus" is the language of politics, not science. If I tell you that the speed of light is 186,282.396 miles per second. That is what it is. It is not open to debate. Climate "science", and boy do I use that term very loosely, is riddled with words such as "may", "could", "might", and "possibly". These are words used by psychichs and charlatans, but not scientists. Once again learn the difference between facts and opinions.

Fact number four, you invoke the Pope. Thank you. Yet more evidence that climatology is the new religion. No science is needed when you have "faith" right buckwheat?

 

[westwall]

You made a claim that money drove the sceptic movement. I

The claim I made [which is a fact] is that these skeptics are associated with the fossil fuel Industry...there are not many if any scientist not linked to those groups who make such claims...if there are actual non Exxon non Heartland non Koch brothers affiliated scientist bring them on

Who cares. In the battle of money the climatologists have received more than ten times more than any sceptic ever has, and they hope to fleece the people of the world for orders of magnitude more. You're just too stupid, or you hope to cash in on the scam, to understand what is happening.

 

[westwall]

For you Right winger the word "anthropogenic" means caused by folk's activities...us humans

Of more than 4,000 academic papers published over 20 years, 97.1% agreed that climate change is anthropogenic

Climate research nearly unanimous on human causes survey finds Environment The Guardian

Which is a lie that has been proven to be a lie over and over and over again. When it comes to honesty we can see where the sloppy's of the world stand.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Fact number four, you invoke the Pope. Thank you. Yet more evidence that climatology is the new religion. No science is needed when you have "faith" right buckwheat?

what a fkhead you are what about the Japanese Meteorological and the UK Meteorological...have they have gone Catholic
what about NASA and NOAA and 97 percent of Climate Scientist ...they are on a Religious Crusade too? what a dick head...then you post a 2011 UN work book [it had 251 pages by the way]
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf
and somehow you think you have proven that all Climate scientist are getting ready to pilfer a trillion dollars...are you mental or something ?

all your bullshit [except the irrelevant and meaningless UN Book] ultimately leads to the Fossil fuel Industry the Exxon and the Heartland Institute...I have linked to all that and you insist its the Real scientist who are corrupt...you are both a dogmatic ideologue and a paranoid fool a goof..

 

[Old Rocks]

The Nobel Laureate Climate conference came and went without fan fare or a consensus on CAGW....

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)

The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears.

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.

Then to add insult to injury OF the 65 attendees only 30 (less than half) signed the document showing that major contributors to scenic no longer believe in CAGW. Several called the theroy a "scam".

OPP's even world renowned scientists say AGW is a fraud.

Source

He's a physicist.

Fucking retards.

Ever hear of Atmospheric Physics? Physics of Ocean Thermal Circulation? Of course you haven't.. A LARGE fraction of GWarming papers include Physicists.. Same guys who designed all the space packages that STUDY climate change..

Why yes, of course I have.

The world's leading atmospheric physicist, Dr. James Hansen;

Early life and education[edit]
Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa to James Ivan Hansen and Gladys Ray Hansen.[8] He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space scienceprogram of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyotoand in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[9]

Career[edit]
After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. Hansen's development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate. In 2009 his first book,Storms of My Grandchildren, was published.[10] In 2012 he presented a 2012 TED Talk: Why I must speak out about climate change.[11]

From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center inGreenbelt, Maryland.

As of 2014, Hansen directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute.[12] The program is working to continue to "connect the dots" from advancing basic climate science to promoting public awareness to advocating policy actions.

Research and publications[edit]
As a college student at the University of Iowa, Hansen was attracted to science and the research done by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. A decade later, his focus shifted to planetary research that involved trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

Hansen has stated that one of his research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially the interpretation of remote sensing of the Earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Because of the ability of satellites to monitor the entire globe, they may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change. His other interests include the development of global circulation models to help understand the observed climate trends, and diagnosing human impacts on climate.[13]

James Hansen - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

they hope to fleece the people of the world for orders of magnitude more. You're just too stupid, or you hope to cash in on the scam, to understand what is happening.

I am too stupid to see the grand conspiracy you see grasshopperI know I know lol

Climate Scientist [97 percent of them] are involved in a Scientific operation to fleece or steal trillions ...I got you

and its only Heartland Instituite and Exxon who stand noble and vigilant ....

Dude there is a wonderful medication "Risperidone" you may want to look into...

 

[flacaltenn]

The Nobel Laureate Climate conference came and went without fan fare or a consensus on CAGW....

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)

The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears.

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.

Then to add insult to injury OF the 65 attendees only 30 (less than half) signed the document showing that major contributors to scenic no longer believe in CAGW. Several called the theroy a "scam".

OPP's even world renowned scientists say AGW is a fraud.

Source

He's a physicist.

Fucking retards.

Ever hear of Atmospheric Physics? Physics of Ocean Thermal Circulation? Of course you haven't.. A LARGE fraction of GWarming papers include Physicists.. Same guys who designed all the space packages that STUDY climate change..

Why yes, of course I have.

The world's leading atmospheric physicist, Dr. James Hansen;

Early life and education[edit]
Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa to James Ivan Hansen and Gladys Ray Hansen.[8] He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space scienceprogram of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyotoand in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[9]

Career[edit]
After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. Hansen's development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate. In 2009 his first book,Storms of My Grandchildren, was published.[10] In 2012 he presented a 2012 TED Talk: Why I must speak out about climate change.[11]

From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center inGreenbelt, Maryland.

As of 2014, Hansen directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute.[12] The program is working to continue to "connect the dots" from advancing basic climate science to promoting public awareness to advocating policy actions.

Research and publications[edit]
As a college student at the University of Iowa, Hansen was attracted to science and the research done by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. A decade later, his focus shifted to planetary research that involved trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

Hansen has stated that one of his research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially the interpretation of remote sensing of the Earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Because of the ability of satellites to monitor the entire globe, they may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change. His other interests include the development of global circulation models to help understand the observed climate trends, and diagnosing human impacts on climate.[13]

James Hansen - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

pisssshhh.....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years

Climate change was largely confined to the realm of science until 1988, when the climate scientist James Hansen told Congress that global warming was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil fuels.

The email was written in response to an inquiry on business ethics from the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University.

“What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that climate change was a reality; that it accepted the reality, instead of denying the reality as they have done publicly, and to such an extent that it took it into account in their decision making, in making their economic calculation,” the director of the Institute, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), told the Guardian.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Global surface temperature estimates from NASA GISS.

The latest global temperature data are breaking records

 

[westwall]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years

Climate change was largely confined to the realm of science until 1988, when the climate scientist James Hansen told Congress that global warming was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil fuels.

The email was written in response to an inquiry on business ethics from the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University.

“What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that climate change was a reality; that it accepted the reality, instead of denying the reality as they have done publicly, and to such an extent that it took it into account in their decision making, in making their economic calculation,” the director of the Institute, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), told the Guardian.

Yes climate change happens all the time. Man's role in that is what is at issue. You present opinions and not facts.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fact number four, you invoke the Pope. Thank you. Yet more evidence that climatology is the new religion. No science is needed when you have "faith" right buckwheat?

what a fkhead you are what about the Japanese Meteorological and the UK Meteorological...have they have gone Catholic
what about NASA and NOAA and 97 percent of Climate Scientist ...they are on a Religious Crusade too? what a dick head...then you post a 2011 UN work book [it had 251 pages by the way]
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf
and somehow you think you have proven that all Climate scientist are getting ready to pilfer a trillion dollars...are you mental or something ?

all your bullshit [except the irrelevant and meaningless UN Book] ultimately leads to the Fossil fuel Industry the Exxon and the Heartland Institute...I have linked to all that and you insist its the Real scientist who are corrupt...you are both a dogmatic ideologue and a paranoid fool a goof..

Got a question for you.. Perhaps you've answered it.. Exactly WHAT did these consensus agree on??
Did they give a predicted temperature for 2050? Did they give a sea level rise for 2100? Did they all agree to within reasonable standards on these "predictions"??? When James Hansen (chief US Govt Global Warming Medicine Man) made his statement about the "oceans boiling" --- did 97% of Climate scientists agree on that? CBS and the NY Times later EMBELLISHED this claim to spread fear.

Do you know what the "trigger temperature" is in the Global Warming theory?. The point at which the theory says the Earth will irreparably destroy its own climate? CO2 warming by ITSELF will never get you to the 6 or 8degC rise by 2100 that started this whole scuffle. There are invented MULTIPLIERS on the warming power of CO2 that are required by the theory you defend to get to these hysterical predictions..

Do ALL these scientists agree on what the MULTIPLIERS are? Nope. Hardly, In fact, in the last decade -- these multipliers have PLUNGED from 4 and 5 to maybe 2 or 2.5. Science wasn't settled. Never is. Otherwise eggs would still be very bad for you.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Yes climate change happens all the time. Man's role in that is what is at issue. You present opinions and not facts.

Read this slow and careful OK..don't worry I will walk you through it ...

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years

James Hansen told Congress that global warming was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Did you catch that "due to the burning of fossil fuel"

Then follow this OK

“What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that climate change was a reality; "...they knew Hansen was correct....

By the way simpleton if you had actually read the article I linked you would have seen this "Exxon said Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups."

Above is what Exxon now ACKNOWLEDGES...here is what you just said "Yes climate change happens all the time"

You are not any good at this ...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Do ALL these scientists agree on what the MULTIPLIERS are? Nope. /QUOTE]
.

I am not into Gish Galloping with wing nuts sorry bro...ask your multipliers question when they are giving you the Nobel Prize ...any day now your absolute genius will be recognized..

 

[flacaltenn]

For you Right winger the word "anthropogenic" means caused by folk's activities...us humans

Of more than 4,000 academic papers published over 20 years, 97.1% agreed that climate change is anthropogenic

Climate research nearly unanimous on human causes survey finds Environment The Guardian

Do you think that trying divine OPINION from shuffling academic papers around can be an accurate poll? Are scientific papers SUPPOSED to be places dominated by OPINION? What do you do when there's 10 people on the Authors list? Did they ALL AGREE on any OPINION expressed in an academic paper?

Bad place to "find" consensus. Especially when you count all of the papers that EXPRESSED NO OPINION as part of the 97%. Which is the actual fraud exposed in that "survey"..

Other polls ACTUALLY ASKED climate scientists how much they agree on. And those results show CONSIDERABLE doubt. Especially about the ancient world and Earlier Holocene temperatures. IIRC -- about 30% of them in one poll -- classified Climate Science as an immature science.. Consensus my ass..