Three scientists knock down global warming consensus

The twelve minute discussion is hosted by Australian commentator Andrew Bolt.

Comments

[Harry Hill]

So a consensus of these 3 'scientists' is enough to disprove and rebut all the hundreds of other scientists who acknowledge the facts about global warming?

[Super Blue]

Only three? There are at least a thousand in the USA and many in the UK and mainland Europe - two of whom have come to Ipswich to address meetings on the subject. Sceptics abound and there is now one in number 11.

[George W. Potter]

@Super Blue

Yeah, unfortunately technicians, medical doctors, geologists, engineers, chemical engineers, etc. might have opinions on climate change but, as they have no special knowledge in the field of climate science, their opinion is worth no more relevant to climate change that that of a street cleaner. I'm doing a science related degree but that doesn't mean that my view on climate change should be given equal weight to that of a climate scientist who's spent decades learning and researching the subject.

[Tufton Bufton]

The sceptic in no 11 has a second class hons degree in history which may be enough to run the country's finances but his knowledge of science perhaps falls a bit short for a credible challenge to a consensus of scientific opinion including more than 100 Nobel Laureates.

[David MacDonald]

Mr Potter,

Engineers assess and model heat transfer all the time. That is their job, or one part of it, for which they need a good grasp of thermodynamics. What is a “climate scientist” and how does one become one if not through the disciplines of applied Physics?

If I, as an engineer, built a bridge and, after a few years it started to crack and become dangerous, then you would have very reason the question my abilities as an engineer. What is the equivalent test for “climate scientists?” How can their theories be investigated and tested?

"I'm doing a science related degree." Good. I hope it includes and understanding of Physics, Thermodynamics and the scientific method.

[englandism.co.uk]

Potter

I’ll stick with the street cleaner, ta ever so. However, if street cleaning becomes a substitute for every generation’s historic and tediously repetitive desire to be at the brink of the apocalypse then I reserve the right to tell the street cleaning prophets to #### off.

Much as I would have done to some mistletoe toking sky falling in Druid back in 1000AD exalting me to run for the caves.

[Tony Dean]

The last great 'Global warming' took place at the end of the Ice Age.
Was this to do with the humans at the time setting bigger bonfires?

[Malcolm Shykles]

There is to be a Scotland wide protest against Windfarms on 22nd October 2011

More than 1,000 reputable scientists have dissented from the prevailing Climate Change theory since 2007. About 400 originally did so in a U.S. Senate report of that year, and the list has since been steadily growing.

Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever recently resigned from the American Physical Society over its official position that “the evidence (for Global Warming) is incontrovertible” said ‘the temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’

The Inconvenient Truths

In his senior year at Harvard, Al Gore had taken a class with oceanographer and global warming theorist Roger Revelle, who had sparked Gore’s interest in global warming because CO2 in the atmosphere was steadily increasing. However we now know that this rise follows a warming period, does not precede it and over the longer term CO2 is falling.

The late Ken Lay CEO of the Enron Corporation realised that the company stood to make vast profits from global warming energy-trading schemes if, it could persuade the world that Carbon dioxide was a pollutant.

http://www.masterresource.org/2009/07/this-agreement-will-be-good-for-enron-stock-from-kyoto-to-waxman-markey/

Al Gore took office in 1993 as the 45th Vice President of the United States (1993–2001) and the Clinton/Gore administration was in frequent contact with the Enron Corporation led by Ken Lay. Gore became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime. A trade system was required, exactly what Enron wanted because they were already trading pollutant credits and making huge profits from the scheme.

Thence Enron vigorously lobbied Clinton and Congress, and sought Environmental Protection Agency regulatory authority over CO2. The Enron Foundation lavished almost $1.5 million on environmental groups supporting international energy controls.

Ken Lay was CEO of Enron from 1985 until his resignation on January 23, 2002. His crowning moment must have been the Kyoto Protocol adopted on 11th December 1997.

http://theforgottenstreet.com/Enron-The-Godfather-of-Kyoto.html

On July 7, 2004, he was indicted by a grand jury on 11 counts of securities fraud and related charges.

There it is; the whole fuss and bother of this Climate Change and Wind Farm nonsense was started by the mix of greed, unproven science, a naive politician and a crook.

Finally following 25years of building Wind Farms across the United States at some enormous expense, they supply less than 3% of its energy usage. A nuclear power plant requires less than 2 square miles of land. A Wind Farm equivalent requires some 500 square miles plus a conventional power plant backup for the 75% of the time when the wind is not blowing just right.

Some Wind Farms are located in areas shared with protected birds. In 2004, based upon carcasses found, it was scientifically estimated that 2,300 golden eagles had been killed by the large wind farm at Altamont Pass, California, in its first 23 years of operation.

http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3071

Wind Farms are a pollutant, Carbon dioxide is not.

[Super Blue]

@David McDonald: Yes, including astrophysicists.

The warmists believe that only those who share their opinions can be called "scientists". Billions of years of history show a constantly oscillating climate before mankind existed and this pattern being followed now as temperatures rose for eleven years then started to cool, just as the hotter sunspots turned away from us.

No wonder the warmists are on the decline - the evidence is increasingly pointing away from them, their "computer models" are being exposed as fiddled and their credibility is being destroyed about them.

[Steve Tierney]

Trying to get a "climate scientist" to speak out against global warming is like trying to get a banker to speak out against money, or a cabinet member to speak out against quantitative easing or a turking to speak in favour of Christmas.

[Jack Pershing]

In my opinion this man made global warming nonsense is a giant tax scam, and a tool to control people. I could be wrong, I suspect I'm right. However if the mean temperatures rose a couple of degrees we might even benefit. Apart from that, a "believer" has not ever yet answered my question......
"How comw the Romans harvested peaches and grapes in the Scottish borders 2000 years ago?"

Additionally, if the left believe something, they're generally wrong.

[John Prendergast]

Margaret Thatcher was persuaded of the GW threat by Sir Crispin Tickel, a real con man. Margaret latched on to this new science which she quarter understood because it gave her and her chemist background respectabliity amoung fellow statesmen.

Jack Pershing relates fact. The Roman Garrison of Hadrian's Wall, manned by non local soldiers, lived well on red wine made fromgrapes grown as far North as the Vale of York

[jack c]

There is still a winery in Yorkshire!
http://www.englishwine.com/vineyards.htm

[Malcolm Shykles]

"We are now delighted to have on this website the full text of Climatic Change and World Affairs, one of the first books to highlight the dangers of human-induced global climate change. The book was first published in 1977, and republished in a revised and extended second edition in 1986. Both editions are to our knowledge out-of-print.

Please make your selection from the keywords listed in the menu or in the header, under which the pages on this site are indexed. Alternatively, use the search box to locate pages containing specific words of your choice.

The creation of this website has been enabled by the Green College Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding, an independent think-tank whose main purpose was to help bridge the gap between science and policy making in matters of the environment. The Centre has now become the Policy Foresight Programme at the 21st Century School, Oxford University."

http://www.crispintickell.com/

So it is also Oxford University we have to blame for this debacle

Radiation through water vapour is almost exactly the same whether CO2 is present or not.

[Marion]

Jack Pershing - you may be interested to know that emminent physicist Hal Lewis agrees with you and resigned in protest from the American Physical Society with this damning condemnation -

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."

And over 100 emminent scientists wrote to the UN expressing their concerns that the 'consensus' claimed by the UN IPCC Summaries for policy makers was no such thing!

"The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government ­representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts."

[Marion]

And Canadian reporter Donna Laframboise has done some excellent research on just who those preferred IPCC 'experts' are -

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/31/does-the-ipcc-follow-the-rules-insiders-say-no/

[Discount North Face]

I'm interested in such offer,The sound quality in these podcasts is really poor. I feel bad about complaining about something that is free, but I think it is important.