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.
dear geo
Although the timeliness of this posting might be questioned, it’s your English that I find curious.
James Sexton writes:
“While its probably too late to rehash the smoking debate, we can learn from the history of the debate. When the EPA conducted the testing to determine if second-hand smoke was harmful, the EPA had standards and benchmarks in their tests that whatever substance being test had to meet before the EPA could make the “harmful” determination. Second-hand smoke never met the criteria. The EPA’s response was to lower the standards only for second-had smoke and made the determination it was harmful. Today, most regard second-hand smoke being harmful as proven scientific fact.”
The smoking debate, so-called, was the precursor of later statist expansions of government and it became a model for statists who intentionally confuse matters of science and policy. As long as those confusions are permitted to exist, science, policy, and the people will suffer while statists will prosper. There was never any good science behind the smoking debate, so-called, and after the debate was won by statists, the science was simply discontinued.
Statists have just won the healthcare debate. Though statists would argue otherwise, there is no science that would lend credence to the claim that Obamacare is better healthcare, that it is affordable, or that it will not stifle scientific innovation. Statists won on a pure power play.
Statists are drawing back from the AGW debate, so-called, because science offers the only grounds for believing that GW requires that humans take action or that human action can make a difference. Yet there is nothing worthy of the name “science” that supports AGW. This fact is becoming evident to all fair-minded people. The gravity of our sickness is shown by the fact that NAS will put their reputation on the line for science that is, at best, in its infancy. Another case of policy being intentionally confused with science for the purpose of supporting statism.
There are many other examples.
In these times, each individual has the most stringent moral duty to undertake or support the most exhaustive criticisms of scientific claims, so-called, that are undertaken to support statist ends. The burden of proof must be born by the scientists whose science, so-called, supports statist ends.
When the smoking wars were happening, I thought it was just a fight between smokers and non-smokers. Little did I see that the non-smokers were just useful idiots for the statists. I will not be that naive again. Neither should anyone else.
How sad it is that Richard Feynman is no longer with us. His language would have been so colourful and candid.
The likes of Hansen, Jones, Mann and Briffa aren’t fit to make the tea for the big hitters. I don’t even think that Feynman would have recognised the dendropaleo snake oilers as scientists in the first place.
Richard Holle says:
July 25, 2010 at 11:04 am
1. The Sun was quiet for xx years.
2. The Earth got very cold.
3. We don’t understand the exact relationship.
When this minimum drags on, and the 1st icy plunges hit, they’ll be saying “Who knew?”.
Answer: The historians who documented those times, for the sake of the poor slobs living in the next go-round.
evanmjones says:
July 25, 2010 at 8:44 am
The problem with your arguments, which are quite good, is that most people do not get math. In particular, they do not get ‘word problems’. They rely on others to explain math things to them.
Winston Churchill was terrible at math and word problems. He had his own math interpreter to help him with the inevitable word problems arising from running a world war. Even then he never ‘got’ logistics, which is a collection of word problems. Brooke, his chief of staff, earned his pay by keeping Churchill’s desire to start landing troops everywhere basically under control Norway in particular, seemed to be a big attraction for him.
The one time Churchill slipped the controls of his keeper was Anzio. It was almost a disaster. Of course the guy in charge became the scapegoat.
[REPLY – Well, to those guys, I’d just say, “Prime Minister, the amount of added CO2 so far has not created warming in the past at the same rate the IPCC says it will in the future. It just doesn’t add up. Sir.” ~ Evan]
Anna V. writes:
“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.”
You give them too much credit. Models are not up to the level of hypotheses and cannot be used to make predictions and, for that reason, cannot be falsified. For models, the best that you can say is that they are consistent with what is observed in the world. The AGW models have a long way to go before they are so much as consistent with what we know about the world. They are incomplete analytical tools at this time. When they are consistent with what we know about the world, some decades in the future, then they will be good analytical tools. They can be used to teach us all that is implicit in our assumptions. But they will never be hypotheses and useful for prediction.
The Magnificent Seven
Richard Holle says:
July 25, 2010 at 11:04 am
“We must get out of the lab, stop with the models and go outside and look at the real thing.”
“modeling is just like masturbation….you put your mind to it and do it long enough…you start believing it’s the real thing”
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6737#comment-678870
hmm. well things do change over time, so its often useful to take a look at the articles cited.
Jastrow 1991 article..
“Computer models predict that clear signs of the greenhouse effect should have appeared as a consequence of increases in greenhouse gases, equivalent to a 50% increase in carbon dioxide in the last 100 years. The predictions are contradicted by the climate record in nearly every important respect. Contrary to the models:”
1. (1) the Northern Hemisphere has not warmed more than the Southern Hemisphere,
2. (2) high latitudes have not warmed more than low latitudes, and
3. (3) the U.S. has not shown the predicted warming trend, although this is the largest area in the world for which well-distributed, reliable records are available.
Finally, all of the computations of the greenhouse effect show an accelerating increase in temperature in the 1980s, reflecting the rapid increase in greenhouse gases in recent years. However, measurements from orbiting satellites with a precision of 0.01 °C show no trend to higher temperatures in the 1980s.”
Revisiting those claims, 20 years later.. Busted. That doesnt make AGW right, but the claims made in the paper cited have not held up.
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,[…]”
Are we maybe being a little afraid now?
Andrew30 says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:33 am
evanmjones, have you considered the following:
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.
The Maunder Minimum was a period of low solar activity….
The Sporer Minimum was a period of low solar activity,….
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.
________________________________________________________
evanmjones
[REPLY – Yes, I’ve considered that. There’s some correlation, although the Oort Minimum occurred during the Medieval Warm period. The Spoerer, Wolf, Maunder, and Dalton minimums partially, but not completely, correlate with the LIA. We may or may not be entering one now (someone wanted to cal it the “Ad Ho Minimum”, which gets my vote). Lief Svalgaard, our solar expert, contends the correlation of the Seuss/DeVries and Gleissberg cycles with cooling periods is not great and the TSI delta is insufficient. So I’m not sure what to think. Svensmark may be about to be real-world tested, though, now. We’ll observe! ~ Evan]
_______________________________________________
evanmjones, have you also considered the following:
Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, USA et al
“….Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present….”
Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception
Ulrich C. Müller & Jörg Pross, Institute of Geosciences, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
“Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….”
I do not get a very warm and fuzzy feeling from either of those peer-reviewed papers.
[REPLY – Not those papers, specifically, but I have certainly considered that we are near the end of the current optimum, and that Milankovitch cycles are reverting towards ice age conditions, and that we are in cooler times than we were a few thousand years back. As to whether a grand minimum will be the first domino or standard ice age feedback, I would not know. What I do know is that IPCC CO2 positive feedback theory does not appear to add up. (It seems to fail the 8th-grade arithmetic test.) ~ Evan]
fFreddy,
I updated his bio and sent it to Anthony,
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)
He received so many awards it gets a little ridiculous but why not?
toby says: “…sullied their reputations by becoming the paid shills of tobacco companies…The question is not about how many eminent old physicists are contrarians, but how many young ones?”
Ad hominem. Non sequitur. Numbers. Zzzzzzzzz.
On the surface, Freeman Dyson may seem to have some minor qualifications, but does he know as much as Al Gore?
stevengoddard says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:28 am
Teller (Dr. Strangelove) was one of the original global warming alarmists- going back to the 1950s. As he got older, he got a little smarter:
….. It’s wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation–America–can consider spending $100 billion or so each year to address a problem that may not exist–and that, if it does exist, certainly has unknown dimensions.
——
Mikael Pihlström says:
July 25, 2010 at 10:14 am
If a problem has ‘unknown dimensions’ you might want to recommend
some research?
The sceptic SPPI talks about 79 billion spent since 1989 – where does
Teller get the 100 billion/year from?
Anyhow, science would be progressing towards research on global-wide
systems, with or without climate fears.
And it seems to me that at least WUWT bloggers are passionate about
this kind of research?
_______________________________________________________________
Teller is not speaking about research, he is talking about the cost of dismantling Western Civilization.
“A massive campaign [global warming] must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.”
“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “They must design a stable, low-consumption economy [Agenda 21] in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/51702
That is the goal and has always been the goal. A return to serfdom for every one but the privileged few. It has been called by various names: Feudalism, totalitarianism, fascism, socialism, and communism. In the US and the EU we have “Corporatism” by that I mean dominance of government by large corporations.
No matter what its form or what we call it a few men claw their way to the top of the heap and try to control all their fellow men either by armed force or through propaganda or usually a combination of both.
This Marxist site sums it up very nicely:
“What unites the many different forms of Socialism.. is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control…” http://search.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/0-2souls.htm
Socialism and communism and fascism and corporatism are just other names for feudalism. The control of the many by the select few, with a few different twists thrown in to hoodwink the masses.
Anthony some minor corrections,
1. ‘Nobel’ is spelled wrong in two places under Giaever and Laughlin’s bios, “Notable: Noble Prize in Physics.” should be “Notable: Nobel Prize in Physics.”
2. Change the first sentence to,
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.
…remove the ‘are’.
3. I updated Dyson’s bio.
Thanks.
Uh oh it’s a blacklist.
Ric Werme (july 25, 2010 8:44am)
I know precisely what he is doing as I have seen that figure many times. Don’t patronize me. I’m quite aware of how to do a percentage. You miss the point. By referencing Co2 to itself only and not the rest of the atmosphere you are being deceptive. We do not live in a Co2 only atmosphere. The use of 40% is a classic warmer tactic to make something sound far worse than it really is. Properly expressed its a .01% increase. Really, it is, I wouldn’t kid you. Methinks you have smoked the warmist pipe too long.
Evan: Interesting reply but I predict they will not find it, just like the hot spot.
[REPLY – Please bear in mind that Ric is not in any way an alarmist. What I am saying is that even assuming standard CO2 forcing theory is correct, it appears that there is no positive feedback whatever in evidence. ~ Evan]
“The use of 40% is a classic warmer tactic to make something sound far worse than it really is. Properly expressed its a .01% increase. Really, it is, I wouldn’t kid you. Methinks you have smoked the warmist pipe too long.”
280 to 390 is not a 0.01% increase.
Feynman was the last great scientist to insist on attention to scientific method in all matters scientific. He would hav scorched the likes of Jones, Mann, Al Gore and the whole bunch.
@ur momisugly toby, 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[…]”
Wow, your logic is unassailable. So according to you:
The tobacco companies funded junk science.
These “august gentleman sullied their reputations by becoming paid shills of tobacco companies.”
Therefore, they’re wrong. (Or AGW is true.)
Seriously? Prove it.
It’s an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque. What these men did before is irrelevant to the strength, cogency, and validity of their AGW arguments. It’s an attempt to distract from the fact that you have no real argument that will hold up.
Steven Mosher writes:
“Revisiting those claims, 20 years later.. Busted. That doesnt make AGW right, but the claims made in the paper cited have not held up.”
Are you suggesting that the USA has shown the predicted warming trends? Maybe you are not and maybe I misunderstand you. What we know about warming trends in the USA for the last twenty years are that there are none and that Warmists scientists, so-called, have lied through their teeth in an effort to convice the public that Al Gore is right.
Another quote Freeman Dyson is famous for:
“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”
So you have found seven “sceptical” physicists, neither of whom has worked in climate science, four of whom are dead, two of whom are over 80 years old … Impressive, to say the least!
“Mikael Pihlström says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:25 am
The peer-reviewed articles given are dated 1977-1993. The newest is
seventeen years old. A lot of new research has been done meanwhile.”
Nope nothing new at all.
A lot more tap dancing, but nothing new.
Not one step closer to understanding any of it.