http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/08/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-says-obama-is-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/
He says global warming is a "non-problem."
He says global warming is a "non-problem."
Blasphemy! Burn him at the stake!
The Nobel Laureate's specialty is physics, and he received the prize for "quantum tunneling." That means he doesn't know sh*t about climate science. Yes, there are sub-specialties in science, and just because one knows a lot about one, doesn't mean they're qualified to comment on another that's far afield from what they do. The fact that he left the American Physical Society over this, coupled with the comments he made in the article, tells me that he likes to be a contrarian.
Nobells? wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/08/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-says-obama-is-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/He says global warming is a "non-problem."
For those keeping score at home, 36 Nobel laureates at a conference signed a declaration on climate change ( http://www.lindau-nobel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Mainau-Declaration-2015-EN.pdf ) and the Fox News story is about the one in vociferous opposition.
He has spent several years studying the field. It's not difficult to spot sh|tty science in a different field. It's about the theory, the methods, and the validity of predictions (among other). And this guy is not dependent on liberal governments or NGOs that profit from the AGW scam.
So why is this guy so special? The bulk of other scientists say differently. Would you say that if a scientist is dependent on an entity that has a reason to deny global warming then they would be wrong? Please, please, please answer this question. The reply will be fun.
global warming = astrology wrote:
He has spent several years studying the field. It's not difficult to spot sh|tty science in a different field. It's about the theory, the methods, and the validity of predictions (among other). And this guy is not dependent on liberal governments or NGOs that profit from the AGW scam.
So dies that mean he is exempt from bias in an opposite direction?
Being an outlier can get you airtime and exposure on exceptional journalistic outlets like fox news.
BTW I was being sarcastic. Only complete idiots believe fox news. Most news for that matter... but fox is a disgrace and insult to most people's intelligence.
BTW you are all ghey for arguing over clouds.
global warming = astrology wrote:
He has spent several years studying the field. It's not difficult to spot sh|tty science in a different field. It's about the theory, the methods, and the validity of predictions (among other). And this guy is not dependent on liberal governments or NGOs that profit from the AGW scam.
America is probably the only developed western democracy with global warming deniers. You should build a roof over the entire country and declare it the biggest mental institution in the world.
He is being published because of his "opinion," not the rigor of his research.Would they be speaking with him if he thought climate change caused by humans was real?I don't think so. Hence, he himself is irrelevant...it's what he said that matters. You could put Mickey Mouse in his seat and Fox would still promote the viewpoint.
Nobells? wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/08/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-says-obama-is-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/He says global warming is a "non-problem."
Your hero scientist with a little internet searching has not published any scientific research on climate change according tor RPI and Univ of Oslo. His travel and speaking is funded by the Cato Institute and Hearland Institute. In 2012 he had a gem of a start on his presentation at the convention of Nobel laureates.
"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."
Is this really the best deniers can do? Between this guy and Willie Soon you deniers got some credibility work to do.
I've read that the majority of predictions made by the GW models have been wrong. Seriously, I have no idea if that's true. If it is true, does it even matter?
Little Googling wrote:
Your hero scientist with a little internet searching has not published any scientific research on climate change according tor RPI and Univ of Oslo. His travel and speaking is funded by the Cato Institute and Hearland Institute. In 2012 he had a gem of a start on his presentation at the convention of Nobel laureates.
"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."
Is this really the best deniers can do? Between this guy and Willie Soon you deniers got some credibility work to do.
PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The earth continually getting hotter isn't a problem? Oh, Fox News...ok - got it.
kjkjasdf wrote:
I've read that the majority of predictions made by the GW models have been wrong. Seriously, I have no idea if that's true. If it is true, does it even matter?
That's good that you read that they were wrong. I read today that an alien aircraft flew over texas. But really, does it even matter? Of course it doesn't.
Posty Poster wrote:
So why is this guy so special? The bulk of other scientists say differently. Would you say that if a scientist is dependent on an entity that has a reason to deny global warming then they would be wrong? Please, please, please answer this question. The reply will be fun.
Because "the bulk of others scientist" is a false claim.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdfAbstract
It is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus” was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change.
Here's a summary of the article:
Brenchley’s paper goes on to cite the origin of the claim that global warming has universal consensus among the scientific community, when in fact, there never was consensus. His paper also addresses a more serious issue at hand here. The issue of fraud being perpetuated by some in the scientific community and by the journal Science specifically.
The claim of “consensus” can be traced back to an article in the journal Science entitled “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian who lacked qualifications in climatology. In her essay (not a scientific peer-reviewed paper) published in 2004, she analyzed 928 abstracts published in peer-reviewed science journals between 1993 and 2003, using the key words “climate change”.
She concluded that 75% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the “consensus” view; 25% took no position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate; and –“Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. … This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. … Our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. … There is a consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”
A lot of heavy stuff coming from one essay, however, when true scientific scrutiny was applied to her essay, it turns out it was bunk. After all, replication of scientific findings is the hallmark of science.
Benchley goes on to cite an attempt to replicate Oreskes study by Dr Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK. He found that using the search words “climate change” in the ISI Web of Science database, there were over 12,000 papers (from 1993 to 2003) not the 928 as Oreskes claimed. When he notified Science of his findings, the editors backpedaled and said that her search was based on “global climate change” not “climate change”.
Peiser then changed his search to “global climate change” which yielded 1117 documents, 929 articles and 905 abstracts. Among the many conflicting conclusions Peiser found was that fewer than 33% of the articles either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus” as defined by Oreskes (not the 75% that she claimed), and that more than HALF of the 905 abstracts didn’t mention anthropogenic climate change at all! Only 13 of the 1117 documents explicitly agreed with Oreskes own definition of “consensus.” That’s only 1%!
Dr Peiser wrote Science with his findings pointing out the many holes in Oreskes findings, only to have Science return a letter requesting a shortened version, when he did, they refused to publish it anyway! The editors of Science refused to publish any of the letters they received pointing out the deficiencies in the Oreskes analysis.
Why don't we get some actual climate scientists to comment? 97% of them agree that there is global warming.
Inconvenient facts wrote:
Posty Poster wrote:So why is this guy so special? The bulk of other scientists say differently. Would you say that if a scientist is dependent on an entity that has a reason to deny global warming then they would be wrong? Please, please, please answer this question. The reply will be fun.
Because "the bulk of others scientist" is a false claim.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdfAbstract
It is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus” was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change.
Here's a summary of the article:
Brenchley’s paper goes on to cite the origin of the claim that global warming has universal consensus among the scientific community, when in fact, there never was consensus. His paper also addresses a more serious issue at hand here. The issue of fraud being perpetuated by some in the scientific community and by the journal Science specifically.
The claim of “consensus” can be traced back to an article in the journal Science entitled “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian who lacked qualifications in climatology. In her essay (not a scientific peer-reviewed paper) published in 2004, she analyzed 928 abstracts published in peer-reviewed science journals between 1993 and 2003, using the key words “climate change”.
She concluded that 75% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the “consensus” view; 25% took no position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate; and –“Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. … This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. … Our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. … There is a consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”
A lot of heavy stuff coming from one essay, however, when true scientific scrutiny was applied to her essay, it turns out it was bunk. After all, replication of scientific findings is the hallmark of science.
Benchley goes on to cite an attempt to replicate Oreskes study by Dr Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK. He found that using the search words “climate change” in the ISI Web of Science database, there were over 12,000 papers (from 1993 to 2003) not the 928 as Oreskes claimed. When he notified Science of his findings, the editors backpedaled and said that her search was based on “global climate change” not “climate change”.
Peiser then changed his search to “global climate change” which yielded 1117 documents, 929 articles and 905 abstracts. Among the many conflicting conclusions Peiser found was that fewer than 33% of the articles either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus” as defined by Oreskes (not the 75% that she claimed), and that more than HALF of the 905 abstracts didn’t mention anthropogenic climate change at all! Only 13 of the 1117 documents explicitly agreed with Oreskes own definition of “consensus.” That’s only 1%!
Dr Peiser wrote Science with his findings pointing out the many holes in Oreskes findings, only to have Science return a letter requesting a shortened version, when he did, they refused to publish it anyway! The editors of Science refused to publish any of the letters they received pointing out the deficiencies in the Oreskes analysis.
Oh, snap!!
Dr. Ivar Giaever is a Bio-Physicist, not a Climatologist. The is like the weights coach telling the distance coach that they don't know how to train distance runners. Nothing to see here; move along now, little trollies.
UFO Expert wrote:
The earth continually getting hotter isn't a problem? Oh, Fox News...ok - got it.
So says the PMSNBC fan boy.
No, I got it wrote:
UFO Expert wrote:The earth continually getting hotter isn't a problem? Oh, Fox News...ok - got it.
So says the PMSNBC fan boy.
So says the Fox News fan boy.
I'm just asking the question: The earth continually getting hotter isn't a problem?
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday