Reposted from Populartechnology.net by invitation
Seven Eminent Physicists; Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg all skeptical of “man-made” global warming (AGW) alarm.
Freeman Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College (1936-1941), B.A. Mathematics, Cambridge University (1945), Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University (1946–1947), Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University, (1947–1948), Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949), Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951), Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953), Fellow, Royal Society (1952), Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994), Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964), Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965), Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966), Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968), Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968), Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969), J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize (1970), Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975), Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975), Harvey Prize (1977), Wolf Prize in Physics (1981), Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present), Member, London Mathematical Society (2000), Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003), President, Space Studies Institute (2003-Present)
Notable: Unification of Quantum Electrodynamics Theory.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.” – Freeman Dyson
Ivar Giaever, M.E., Norwegian Institute of Technology (1952), Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1964), Engineer, Advanced Engineering Program, General Electric Company (1954–1956), Applied Mathematician, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1956–1958), Researcher, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1958–1988), Guggenheim Fellowship, Biophysics, Cambridge University (1969-1970), Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1965), Nobel Prize in Physics (1973), Member, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1974), Member, National Academy of Science (1974), Member, National Academy of Engineering (1975), Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego (1975), Visiting Professor, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (1975), Professor of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1988-2005), Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Applied BioPhysics (1991-Present), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (2005-Present)
Notable: Nobel Prize in Physics.
“I’m a skeptic. …Global Warming it’s become a new religion. You’re not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that’s important is if the scientists are correct; that’s the important part.” – Ivar Giaever
Robert Laughlin, A.B. Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley (1972), Ph.D. Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1979), Fellow, IBM (1976-1978), Postdoctoral Member, Technical Staff, Bell Laboratories (1979–1981), Research Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1982–2004), Associate Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1985–1989), E.O. Lawrence Award for Physics (1985), Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1986), Eastman Kodak Lecturer, University of Rochester (1989), Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1989–1993), Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1990), Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1992–Present), Professor of Applied Physics, Stanford University (1993-2007), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1994), Nobel Prize in Physics (1998), Board Member, Science Foundation Ireland (2002-2003), President, Asia-Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics (2004-2006), President, Korean Advanced Institute for Science and Technology (2004–2006)
Notable: Nobel Prize in Physics.
“The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control.” – Robert Laughlin
Edward Teller, B.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Karlsruhe (1928), Ph.D. Physics, University of Leipzig (1930), Research Associate, University of Leipzig (1929–1931), Research Associate, University of Göttingen (1931–1933), Rockefeller Fellow, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Copenhagen (1933–1934), Lecturer, London City College (1934), Professor of Physics, George Washington University (1935-1941), Researcher, Manhattan Project, Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory (1942-1943), Group Leader, Manhattan Project, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1943-1946), Professor of Physics, University of Chicago (1946-1952), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1948), Assistant Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1949-1952), Developer, Hydrogen Bomb (1951), Founder, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (1952), Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1953-1975), Associate Director, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (1954–1958), Harrison Medal (1955), Albert Einstein Award (1958), Director, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (1958-1960), Professor, Hoover Institution on War Revolution and Peace, Stanford University (1960–1975), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Atomic Energy Commission (1962), Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution (1975-2003), Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1975–2003), National Medal of Science (1982), Presidential Medal of Freedom (2003), (Died: September 9, 2003)
Notable: Manhattan Project Member, Developer of the Hydrogen Bomb and Founder of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“Society’s emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming–the jury is still out.” – Edward Teller
Frederick Seitz, A.B. Mathematics, Stanford University (1932), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1934), Proctor Fellow, Princeton University (1934–1935), Instructor in Physics, University of Rochester (1935–1936), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1936–1937), Research Physicist, General Electric Company (1937–1939), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1939–1941), Associate Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1941-1942), Professor of Physics, Carnegie Institute of Technology (1942-1949), Research Professor of Physics, University of Illinois (1949-1965), Chairman, American Institute of Physics (1954-1960), President Emeritus, American Physical Society (1961), President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences (1962-1969), Graduate College Dean, University of Illinois (1964-1965), President Emeritus, Rockefeller University (1968-1978), Franklin Medal (1965), American Institute of Physics Compton Medal (1970), National Medal of Science (1973), (Died: March 2, 2008)
Notable: Pioneer in the field of solid-state physics and President Emeritus of the National Academy of Sciences.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.” – Frederick Seitz
Robert Jastrow, A.B. Physics, Columbia University (1944), A.M. Physics, Columbia University (1945), Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University (1948), Adjunct Professor of Geophysics, Columbia University (1944–1982), Postdoctoral Fellow, Leiden University, Netherlands (1948-1949), Scholar, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1949-1950, 1953), Assistant Professor of Physics, Yale (1953-1954), Chief, NASA Theoretical Division (1958-61), Founding Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (1961-1981), NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1968), Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth College (1981-1992), Chairman, Mount Wilson Institute (1992–2003), (Died: February 8, 2008)
Notable: Founding Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and hosted more than 100 CBS-TV network programs on space science.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“The scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.” – Robert Jastrow
William Nierenberg, B.S. Physics, City College of New York (1939), M.A. Physics, Columbia University (1942), Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University (1947), Researcher, Manhattan Project, Columbia SAM Laboratories (1942-1945), Instructor in Physics, Columbia University (1946–1948), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Michigan (1948–1950), Associate Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1950-1953), Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley (1954–1965), Assistant Secretary General for Scientific Affairs, NATO (1960-1962), Director Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (1965-1986), Member, White House Task Force on Oceanography (1969-1970), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1971), Chairman, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (1971-1975), Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (1971–1978), Member, National Science Board (1972–1978, 1982–1988), Chairman, Advisory Council, NASA (1978-1982), Member, Space Panel, Naval Studies Board, National Research Council (1978–1984), Member, Council of the National Academy of Sciences (1979-1982), Chairman, Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, National Academy of Sciences (1980–1983), NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal (1982), (Died: September 10, 2000)
Notable: Manhattan Project Member and Director Emeritus of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Signed: Global Warming Petition Project
“The available data on climate change, however, do not support these predictions, nor do they support the idea that human activity has caused, or will cause, a dangerous increase in global temperatures. …These facts indicate that theoretical estimates of the greenhouse problem have greatly exaggerated its seriousness.” – William Nierenberg
Peer-Reviewed Climate Publications:
Can we control the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
(Energy, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp. 287-291, September 1977)
– Freeman J. Dyson
Evidence for long-term brightness changes of solar-type stars
(Nature, Volume 348, Number 6301, pp. 520-523, December 1990)
– Robert Jastrow
Evidence on the climate impact of solar variations
(Energy, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp. 1285-1295, December 1993)
– Robert Jastrow
Global warming: What does the science tell us?
(Energy, Volume 16, Issues 11-12, pp. 1331-1345, November-December 1991)
– Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz
Keeping cool on global warming
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 5, Issue 6, pp. 32-41, July 1992)
– Frederick Seitz, William Nierenberg, Robert Jastrow
Rebuttals:
A Rebuttal to “Jason and the Secret Climate Change War” (PDF) (Nicolas Nierenberg, Walter R. Tschinkel, Victoria J. Tschinkel)
Clouding the Truth: A Critique of Merchants of Doubt (PDF) (The Marshall Institute)
Early Climate Change Consensus at the National Academy: The Origins and Making of Changing Climate (PDF) (Nicolas Nierenberg, Walter R. Tschinkel, Victoria J. Tschinkel)
Vanity Scare (TCS Daily)
References:
2008 – 58th Meeting of Nobel Laureates (PDF) (University of Hartford)
Do people cause global warming? (The Heartland Institute)
Heretical thoughts about science and society (Edge: The Third Culture)
Letter from Frederick Seitz (Petition Project)
The Planet Needs a Sunscreen (The Wall Street Journal)
What the Earth Knows (The American Scholar)
Sponsored IT training links:
If interested in JN0-400 certification then take advantage of 1z0-053 dumps and 642-746 mock test written by certified expert to help you pass real test on time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.







I dunno about Penrose. I’ve googled for him and a couple of keywords but come up empty. Hawking is an alarmist — alarmed, anyway.
As a follow-up to this thread, how about “Seven Eminent Skeptical Chemists / Biologists / Meteorologists / etc.?
@toby
“The question is not about how many eminent old physicists are contrarians, but how many young ones?”
Unfortunately you probably won’t see many coming out of Old Blighty (UK) any time soon:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/7829448/New-science-GCSEs-still-too-easy.html
In reply to RoyFOMR @ur momisugly July 25, 2010 at 8:05 am
Not so much castles in the sky, rather the Island of Laputa comes to mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laputa
Brian W says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:59 am
evanmjones (july 25, 2010 8:44am)
He said “We have a 40% increase in CO2,” not an increase to 40% of the atmosphere or whatever it is you are suggesting. I assume the 40% is from the 280 “floor” to the current 390 ppm. Umm, 39.3% increase. Close enough.
The figure mostly in dispute is “A doubling of CO2 without any feedback (positive or negative) is roughly a +1.2C forcing.” Evan is merely using it, he’s not claiming he derived it. I would have gone for 1.2 * 1.40 ~= 0.5, though given the logarithmic nature of the beast, 40% is about a half a doubling (another 40% would be 1.40 * 1.40 = 1.96).
I don’t have any problem with Evan’s math, not even his use of percentages! I learned about logarithms and geometric progressions by the 8th grade, so I won’t complain about the grade level either.
[REPLY – I’m a crusty old pre-computer wargamer. Whenever I got my percentages wrong I got my ass kicked. An even better incentive than government funding. ~ Evan]
Andrew30 says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:33 am
evanmjones says: July 25, 2010 at 8:44 am
… Something about being in 8th grade, but it was difficult to follow.
evanmjones, have you considered the following:
[Reply; Neptune and Uranus had a synod conjunction April 20th 1993]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum
The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, from about 1790-1830 that coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.
The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, occurred during the Dalton Minimum.
1. The Sun was quiet for 40 years.
2. The Earth got very cold.
3. We don’t understand the exact relationship.
[reply; Neptune and Uranus had a synod conjunction in 1814]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
The Maunder Minimum was a period of low solar activity, from about 1645-1715 that coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.
The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of the Little Ice Age.
1. The Sun was quiet for 70 years.
2. The Earth got very cold.
3. We don’t understand the exact relationship.
[Reply; Neptune and Uranus had a synod conjunction in 1635]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporer_Minimum
The Sporer Minimum was a period of low solar activity, from about 1460-1550 that coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.
1. The Sun was quiet for 90 years.
2. The Earth got very cold.
3. We don’t understand the exact relationship.
[Reply; Neptune and Uranus had a synod conjunction in 1456]
In science correlation is not causation however in all cases of solar minimums we always see a significant long term drop in global temperature, every single time, there are no exceptions. We do not see any periods of prolonged cold temperatures in the last 500 years that happened during normal solar activity, again no exceptions.
At one time we just knew that there was a connection between smoking and cancer, but it took and examination of actual cases over decades with modern technology to determine the exact relationship.
We have entered another Solar Minima. We now have an actual case and this time we have the modern technology we need to actually measure and finally understand the exact relationship as it unfolds in the coming decades.
If we can truly understand what actually happens during the event, based on actual measurements, and not models, then we will be in a better position to understand and perhaps even explain the warming of the recent past.
We must get out of the lab, stop with the models and go outside and look at the real thing.
[REPLY – Doc Leif is very down on that theory. He says the gravitational effect is insufficient to affect the sun. (Even though the sun is gaseous and the Jovian planet tugs appear to affect earth’s orbital eccentricity.) Again, I’m not sure what to think. But I do accept that the recovery from the nadir of the LIA to the Modern Optimum has to be largely non-CO2 related, as it started around 1650. ~ Evan]
Another crack in the dam.
“Mikael Pihlström says:
The peer-reviewed articles given are dated 1977-1993. The newest is
seventeen years old. A lot of new research has been done meanwhile.
I do know that Dyson’s dissent is more recent.”
However, those of us who followed the carb/nutrition/insulin debate for some time know that the research done and published during the 50’th got it right and almost two decades of BS followed before the research community got rid of the carb religion.
The similarities when looking at the interplay between (the so called) science, politics and media is so strikingly similar it deserves a theory on its own.
toby says:
July 25, 2010 at 7:30 am
Given the age of these august gentlemen, some of whom unfortunately sullied their reputations by becoming the paid shills of tobacco companies, one cannot help thinking of the remark of Max Planck:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
The question is not about how many eminent old physicists are contrarians, but how many young ones?
________________________________________
Your argument might have had some merit except for two points.
First young scientists are concerned about careers and do not rock the boat. The peer reviewed papers on that fact are listed here (start at the BOTTOM of the listed papers)
“For young academics who wish to be published in such journals, Armstrong said, “the factors that would seem to be a deadly combination would be choosing an important problem and obtaining surprising results.”
Other studies, Armstrong said, indicate that obscure writing helps those who have little to say. And having little to say may also be an advantage, especially if the author withholds some significant data. “This will allow the researcher to continue publishing slightly different versions of the same research,” which Armstrong says is a common practice…..
If you want to publish an article in some scientific or medical journal, here is some unusual advice from Scott Armstrong, a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School: Choose an unimportant topic. Agree with existing beliefs. Use convoluted methods. Withhold some of your data. And write the whole thing in stilted, obtuse prose. “ Plain Prose: It’s Seldom Seen in Journals
The second point is the education today stinks thanks to John Dewey. It does not produce independent literate thinkers.
“…In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin — that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently…”
Dumbing Down America
There is independent validation that today’s education stinks
“”For 10 years, William Schmidt, a statistics professor at Michigan State University, has looked at how U.S. students stack up against students in other countries in math and science. “In fourth-grade, we start out pretty well, near the top of the distribution among countries; by eighth-grade, we’re around average, and by 12th-grade, we’re at the bottom of the heap, outperforming only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.”
History as she is wrote: Every textbook, left behind
“….. Surveys of corporations consistently find that businesses are focused outside • the U.S. to recruit necessary talent….“If I wanted to recruit people who are both technically skilled and culturally aware, I wouldn’t even waste time looking for them on U.S. college campuses…. In 2000, 28 percent of all freshmen entering a degree-granting institution required remedial coursework.” Junk Food Diet
“…It has taken modern educators only 50 years to disassemble an educational system that took thousands of years to refine and establish. The classical method was born in ancient Greece and Rome, and by the 16th century, it was used throughout the Western world. This system educated most of America’s founding fathers as well as the world’s philosophers, scientists and leaders between the 10th and 19th centuries. What other period can claim so many advances in science, philosophy, art, and literature?…
In 1947, Dorothy Sayers, a pioneer in the return to classical education, observed, “although we often succeed in teaching our pupils ’subjects,’ we fail lamentably on the whole in teaching them how to think.”…” The Classical Approach
I think I prefer older scientists who are no longer concerned with being “Team Players” so they do not get fired and blackballed as I did. I also prefer older scientists who have had a “classical” education that teaches them to be independent thinkers instead of a “progressive” education that teaches them to be good little “codependent” socialists.
Ref Freeman Dyson – you forgot the most important thing : Winchester College, Scholar
Let me give you the list with links, of why the model predictions are falsified; the models that are used in the IPCC AR4 and by the governments who want to push a pyramid scheme of cap and trade, and reduce the western world to 19th century energy consumption.
1) Global temperatures, such as they are, are in stasis the past ten years and maybe are diminishing while CO2 rises merrily.
2)There is no tropical troposphere footprint as the IPCC predicted.
3)There is no positive feedback, necessary for the models
4)Specific humidity is reducing instead of increasing as expected from the feedback assumption of the models
5)The missing energy is not in the oceans
6)The models do not reproduce absolute temperatures, let alone cloud cover so important for albedo
7)Hydrological predictions of the models are off.
Even one falsification of a prediction sends a theory to the trash basket, let alone model runs and their predictions. I have listed seven here.
As Freeman Dyson says, the whole IPCC AGW hypothesis is based on computer climate modeling. The first person to try a computer climate model was Edward Lorenz. What he found was that tiny changes in the starting conditions, temperature, pressure etc, changes in the fourth, fifth and sixth places after the decimal point had huge effects in the outcome. Since initial conditions can never be measured to that degree of accuracy, he concluded that computer climate modeling was not possible in principle. ( Deterministic Non-Periodic Flow, Journal of Atmospheric Science, 1963. ) This paper has been seen to lay the foundation for the mathematical theory of Deterministic Chaos. This is certainly known by the IPCC. One of the scientists writing the Third Assessment Report wrote: ” In climate research and modeling, we should realise that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long range forecasting of of future climate states is not possible.” ( 3AR Sec 14.2.2.2.) Computer climate models are still used in forecasting and give fairly accurate forecasts for about three days in advance. From three days to a week the forecast is a bit more speculative, and beyond that consulting the Old Farmers Almanac is just as likely to give you an accurate forecast, and be a lot cheaper. The British Meteorological Office got the message after last year’s debacle. They promised a ” barbecue summer.” It turned out to be cold and wet with record flooding in several areas. This was to be followed by ” a mild winter.” They got record snowfalls and record low temperatures. The Met Office has now discontinued issuing seasonal forecasts. Instead they give forecasts for one month ahead which are updated weekly. Freeman Dyson was recently quoted as saying: ” Computer models must constantly be checked against reality, and if you can’t do that, don’t trust the model.”
Consensus among all these old dudes (and some of them dead dudes) must mean there are right? Right?
In the 60’s and early 70’s there were a bunch of old dudes who called Plate Tectonics a “religion” and “pseudoscience” and went to their graves denying plate tectonics.
I am not sure what this article is really trying to do? Science is not a populations contest. The screaming from the “deniers” about how consensus is meaning less in science makes this article even more baffling to show up here.
P.S. There is a group of scientist who think the earth is only 6k years old, does that mean they are right because their little group has a consensus?
Well at least 4 of these scientists are dead, so is it really fair to count them as sceptics?
REPLY: By that logic then, is it really fair to count the late Dr. Stephen Schneider as an AGW believer? No disrespect intended to him or to his family, but your logic fails in the reverse. A person’s body of work, quotes, and opinions can’t change after death (unless history rewriters at Wiki start on it) – Anthony
and a typo above…popularity* contest…not a populations contest!
Since several of them are dead, one for ten years, I do find the timliness of this somewhat curious.
anna v says: @ur momisugly July 25, 2010 at 11:16 am
Let me give you the list with links, of why the model predictions are falsified;
Thank you Anna. How many times can a theory be disproved before eventually the nakedness is seen? Your list should end all discussion, frankly. We simply don’t understand climate and this particular AGW theory of climate fails spectacularly.
Unfortunately, science is now controlled by governments 🙁
Kinda OT but thought some might be interested. The EPA was mentioned in the thread. And, yes, I think they should celebrate their Goreious history, as mentioned at the link below…”advocate for the little guy…” Puhleeze
Kinda funny and kinda scary at the same time, check it out.
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/011422.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+worldchanging_fulltext+%28WorldChanging.com+Full+Text%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
PS – Sorry, don’t know how to do the short version.
Richard Holle says: July 25, 2010 at 11:04 am
Re: ‘Neptune and Uranus had a synod conjunction in …”
Current Minima: 2008 –
Neptune and Uranus had a synod conjunction in 1993
Relationship: start – 15 years = synod
Dalton Minimum 1790-1830
Neptune and Uranus had a synod conjunction in 1814
Relationship: start + 24 years = synod = end – 16 years
Maunder Minimum 1645-1715
Neptune and Uranus had a synod conjunction in 1635
Relationship: start – 10 years = synod = end – 80 years
Sporer Minimum 1460-1550
Neptune and Uranus had a synod conjunction in 1456
Relationship: start – 4 years = synod = end – 94 years
Worst allignment:
Synod 24 years After start of event
Synon 94 years Before end of event.
Have Neptune and Uranus ever had a synod conjunction in the last 500 years that did not result in a prolonged period of global cooling?
Min/Max duration of Mimima: 40/90 years
Min/Max duration of Synod: few hours/days
The correlation does not look very good.
What Measurements do you have from the April 20th 1993 event on the affect that the event had on the Earth or the Sun?
Do you have any speculation on how one of the outer planets could have any affect whatsoever on the Sun?
Does the Earth need to exist to support the speculation?
Do you have any speculation on how one of the outer planets could have any affect whatsoever on the Earth?
I don’t know what you are getting at, but as I am fond of saying: “Just because you do not understand something does not mean that it is wrong”. I also apply this saying to myself.
[snip – “Deniers,” “Nazis.” That’s what got your post snipped. ~dbstealey, mod.]
The eccentric Kary Mullis needs to be added to the list.
Here’s a video of a talk he gave – criticises AGW science near the end. Lots of entertaining anecodotes. You’ll love it!
The comments about second hand tobacco smoke are interesting. Fred Singer continues to catch a lot of grief about this. The fact is the EPA reduced their confidence interval to 90% in order to make the data match their desired outcome – which was a finding of “harmful”. There is absolutely no statistical significance associated with this finding. But if you go out and ask 100 people in the street if second hand smoke is harmful you’ll probably get 99 YES answers and a few who will tell you the EPA proved it.
The EPA proved nothing at all…well, not scientifically. They DID prove that if you repeat a lie often enough eventually the public will accept it as “truth”. Personally I’m rather ambivalent about smoking. Of course it’s bad for you and it annoys those who don’t smoke but I rather cling to that archaic notion that individuals have the right to engage in self-destructive behavior if they so choose.
If you don’t want to be around smoke stay away from places where smokers congregate. Recently Michigan outlawed smoking in bars. This doesn’t affect me as I don’t live in Michigan and I really don’t like bars. But the consequences of this ban are interesting. Bar owners report a significant decrease in patronage. Also, their patrons frequently go outside to smoke and buy less food and drink much to the detriment of the proprietors. And the kicker is that only the non-smokers who are bothered by cigarette smoke gained anything. Everybody else loses and nobody’s health is protected in the process.
Extrapolate this to taxing CO2. The only winners are those who collect the taxes and those that believe the AGW myth. Everybody else loses and absolutely no measurable change in climate will result.
Gary Pearse, excellent Gary good comment sir.
I have always believed the majority of informed scientists are not pro AGW but because of their positions/sinecures/livelihoods are not in a position to be able to comment, this is why we were supposed to have a 99.0% ‘consensus in AGW’, not because everybody believed but because not everybody spoke out.
The cracks grow ever wider, the truth will out and that basic truth is; there is no truth in the rumours and alchemy of AGW.
So alarmist masters of necromancy put away your flasks and infernal machines, the world grows wise to your deceits.
We’ve got these guys, Anthony, Steve et al.
Who have they got? The Hokey team… Jo Abess… The Mad Dhog…
Anybody mentioned this to Lisa Jackson or Obama. Oh sorry the science is settled.
And an oustanding clip of IVAR GIAEVER.
Also with funny anecdotes!
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/ivar-giaever-on-winning-the-big-prize/
Well worth the time watching!!