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.
Henri Tuletucker says:
July 25, 2010 at 10:36 pm
“Would it be okay if I pinned you down and farted on your face? It probably doesn’t cause cancer so under your logic you have no right to object.”
Well…actually this WOULD be assault and you would end up with fewer teeth and a permanent limp. One of the (many) reasons I don’t like bars is cigarette smoke. The solution is easy. I avoid going to bars. But I played in a bluegrass band in my youth and we very frequently played in bars. I had a blast in those days. It was great fun. But bars are (or were) smokey places. As an adult I choose to avoid them. This is MY own personal choice. If an establishment wishes to allow smoking that should be their choice and your choice not to patronize such establishments if this behavior offends your sensibilities. Geez…this is a no-brainer.
The real issue here is the tyranny of the polemic. Second hand smoke has not been proven to cause cancer. CO2 has not been proven to cause catastrophic global warming. The corruption of science to fit a political agenda can have perilous consequences for all of us.
If smoking were outlawed tomorrow it wouldn’t matter much to me. It wouldn’t affect me personally. But if it is outlawed it should be for a scientifically provable reason (i.e. if person A smokes, person B is endangered by being in proximity), not because someone merely finds it objectionable. I don’t care how many “anthropogenic CO2 will kill the planet” worshipers there are out there. If they can’t back up their claims they need to shut up.
@J.Hansford
Wow. I am at a loss of words after reading what you write.
One fine point that should be borne in mind in the discussion of second-hand smoke is that between regular exposure at home or on the job, and intermittent exposure (in a bar, etc.) The evidence on the harmfulness of the latter is weak. I think that certain warmist sites have tarred free-market think tanks that have objected to prohibitions on intermittent exposure as being “deniers” of “tobacco’s harmfulness,” or something of the sort.
Jim July 25, 2010 at 8:02pm,
No Jim, we only think we won. The battle we should have been fighting contemporaneously was with the stated aim (Antonio Gramsci, 1920’s) of infiltrating the West’s Institutions, to obtain a collapse from within. This was reiterated by Kruschev, and a defector from the KGB in the ’80’s, and the Fabian society and other socialist think tanks ever since.
The reason that in critical areas, math, science and language America has fallen behind is that the institutions of learning have been subverted with post modernist thinking,(no absolutes, every point of view has equal validity) as have the civil service and law.
It is not for nothing that the “motif” of the Fabian society has a clearly depicted ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ in the background !
Dr. Dave says:
July 25, 2010 at 11:49 pm
“…………. One of the (many) reasons I don’t like bars is cigarette smoke. The solution is easy. I avoid going to bars. But I played in a bluegrass band in my youth and we very frequently played in bars. I had a blast in those days. It was great fun. But bars are (or were) smokey places. As an adult I choose to avoid them. This is MY own personal choice. If an establishment wishes to allow smoking that should be their choice and your choice not to patronize such establishments if this behavior offends your sensibilities. Geez…this is a no-brainer.
The real issue here is the tyranny of the polemic. Second hand smoke has not been proven to cause cancer. CO2 has not been proven to cause catastrophic global warming. The corruption of science to fit a political agenda can have perilous consequences for all of us.”
Dave, thank you for tying the smoking conversation up quite nicely. You were quite eloquent in demonstrating how one defends others liberties by using your own. Well done. I hadn’t intended to start such a discussion, or debate smoking, but I think it is necessary to place historical events in their proper context to allow people to understand what is really happening.
While there may be some paranoid doomsayers that honestly believe we’re all going to die by the hand of CO2 emissions, I don’t think any sane people really do. We know Al Gore doesn’t. He just bought a mansion on the ocean front. The greenies fly to their meetings, rent limos, and otherwise engage in the same behaviors which we are told is going to destroy the earth. Either these are the most callous people in the history of the world, or, they can’t possibly believe the tripe they spew. So, why then all of the hyperbole and alarm? It’s just run of the mill tyranny. Nothing new here. They use psuedo-science to attempt to give their position an appearance of legitimacy. Again, nothing new, given the discussion here about the smoking issue, we can see the same was done not so long ago. While I didn’t expect it here, we had the good fortune to have commentators that showed us how easy it is to become a tyrant in the name of science(or health) while not recognizing their own selfishness. And how there is always an issue for someone to seize upon that wishes to control the behavior of the masses.
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” — Thomas Jefferson
This is exactly true as the free-market think tanks arguments relating to tobacco are not that it is harmless but that the harms are exaggerated especially in relation to second hand smoke and that it is the right of a business to decide who’s clientele it wishes to serve just like it is the right of the customer to choose if they wish to patronize said business. These logical arguments are ignored by those who like to argue against against liberty in the guise of the nanny state.
The Tobacco argument is a propagandist tool to smear highly credentialed scientists since most alarmists highly value credentials and those whom they perceive as “intellectuals”. Accepting that such scientists exist that do not support their alarmist position would create a cognitive dissonance. Thus their method to cope is to smear these scientists as “evil” by linking them to tobacco companies, whom they already regard as “evil”.
I’ve provided the rebuttals to these smears in the rebuttals section yet people continue to ignore my comments on this earlier and have obviously not taken the time to read them. So again read: ‘Vanity Scare’ and ‘Clouding the Truth: A Critique of Merchants of Doubt’,
You see just the association of where the research funds originated is all alarmists need to attempt to smear any scientist associated with those funds as “evil”, they never speak of the actual research they did with the money, their results or their outspoken position on the issue, they simply attempt character assassination by research funding source. You have to remember to alarmists all privately funded research is by default nefarious simply because it was “private” but this is a two for one for them and thus unquestionably sinister. To them facts don’t matter only what they “feel” is the “truth”.
It looks like this post has touched a nerve,
Newsflash: WhatsUpWithIt Irresponsibly Posts Blacklist of Eminent Physicists
I love when they telegraph the posts they feel threatened by.
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?_______________________________________________
You are simply using the tried and true Warmist tactic of the red herring of one’s age, which you know perfectly well has nothing to do with the validity of a scientific argument. And sorry, but the CAGW/CC argument doesn’t even begin to rise to the level of “scientific truth”. It never actually rose beyond the level of a highly-glorified, much-ballyhooed conjecture. That much is becoming plainer by the day to even the most wooly-headed of climate bed wetters.
I’m a smoker.The laws banning smoking in restaurants and shops,any area where the public mingles indoors is good,banning in pubs–bad.They should have allowed bars for smokers–individual choice,what’s wrong with installing extraction fans as well?
I know the second hand smoke theory is garbage.I look around at all the smokers I know,all the children they have had,need I say more?
That said,I am glad in a way that society came down on smoking,it’s a dirty habit,no good at all.
What amuse me is how Americans in certain parts of the country are embracing smoking in the form of marijuana.Do they know that most people mix marijuana with tobacco?
Next step will be smoking areas for users of marijuana,while smokers are left out in the cold.
It’s a weird world.
Brian W says:
July 25, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Ric Werme (july 25, 2010 8:44am)
I had hoped you might explain what that 0.01% is a percentage of. While you may not kid me, I observe your expositional skills need development. It looks like it has to be the change in CO2 relative to the entire atmosphere – 0.01% of X is a ratio of 0.0001, or 100 ppm. Yep, CO2 as a percentage of the total atmosphere has increased from 0.03% to 0.04%. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up (from those single significant digit amounts) by 30%.
Both ways are valid ways of describing percentages, but any percentage needs to describe what it’s a percentage of. Evan was quite clear and I’ll stand by his numbers.
What you’re doing is emphasizing that CO2 is just a trace gas and trace gasses won’t hurt anyone. (I assume you’re excluding carbon monoxide.) However, CO2 is a very important trace gas. It used to be a lot more important – the first 100 ppm, err, first 0.01%, had a huge impact on blocking long wave radiation. The most recent 0.01% hasn’t had nearly the impact. While I appreciate the stand of some level headed scientists who expect to find an increasing global temperature with increasing CO2, I don’t think we have good enough data to demonstrate that and suspect that increased convection (and Willis’s thunderstorm governor) trumps CO2 increases and changes in mean free path of IR photons, blocking around the edges of the absorpton window, etc.
You’re welcome to your opinion as much as I am to mine. I suspect you have little evidence to support your claim though. I suggest you start with my website above or my essay Science, Method, Climatology, and Forgetting the Basics at http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html .
It needs a little updating, as it’s the first serious web page I created on climate change, but it does reflect my then new understanding that the CO2 IR absorption window is saturated. I think that’s a pretty impressive accomplishment for a trace gas.
As for those making the ridiculous age argument,
With age really DOES come wisdom: Scientists prove older people are less impulsive (The Daily Mail, UK)
Poptech says:
July 26, 2010 at 5:10 am
“This is exactly true as the free-market think tanks arguments relating to tobacco are not that it is harmless but that the harms are exaggerated especially in relation to second hand smoke and that it is the right of a business to decide who’s clientele it wishes to serve just like it is the right of the customer to choose if they wish to patronize said business.”
Absolutely, the lunacy of the argument has always been beyond me. Of course, too much of anything can be detrimental to ones health. For instance, if one spent all day, every day behind a diesel bus one would expect some respiratory difficulties. Same as being a coal miner without proper respiratory equipment. Yet, the typical exposure to second-hand smoke was/is nowhere near the type and levels of exposure in the aforementioned scenarios. What absolutely floors me is the willingness of citizens to voluntarily give up their fellows citizens liberties without seeing how when one of us looses liberty, we all lose our liberty.
I hate rap music. Given the volume and the manner it is listened to, it is beyond a doubt harmful to anyone’s auditory health. I’ve left places that started to play that stuff they try to pass off as music. By the logic used in regards to smoking bans, I should start a movement that criminalizes people that listen to rap. I’m certain I can get any number of hearing specialists to bear witness to the harm the rap player inflicts on other people. It should be my right to be able to go to a night club without having that noise inflicted upon my person and I should insist on that right. I should take it to the EPA, fed, state and local legislatures. If I’m persistent enough, I’ll win. Or I could use the logic handed down to me from generation past and have the sense to avoid things that offend my sensibilities and revel in the freedoms of my fellow Americans.—–I will defend a rap players freedom to play until the very end.
None of these guys say that CO2 is not a warming gas. CO2 holds infrared in the atmosphere; CO2 has increased by 50% in the blink of a geologic eye as TeraTons of it, sequestered over millions of years, is released by humans. I don’t need models. I know that there is warming being added (no matter what the net effect) that would not otherwise be there, and that we are playing around with the planet, using it as an experiment, already. If just half of the physics (or physics-related) PhD’s said there was cause for concern, that would be enough. The stipulated facts are that worrisome.
This is illogical as these are not public locations but private businesses. There has been for over 20 years non-smoking sections in just about every restaurant and there was never a problem. So long as you have a choice to not go into the business, it is illogical to ban smoking there.
This is due to left over rejects from the sixties passing on their brain damaged experiences to other weak minded individuals. Forget mixing it with tobacco as marijuana smoke is worse than smoking on it’s own,
Impact on lungs of 1 cannabis joint equal to up to 5 cigarettes (British Medical Journal)
I detail the the myriad health risks (brain damage, cancer, gum disease, heart disease, infertility, lung disease, obesity, pregnancy failure, viral infections) from pot here.
I had hoped you might explain what that 0.01% is a percentage of.
He means CO2 increase as compared with total volume of atmosphere.
I checked and it seems they are using Argon as filling for double glaze , and a reflective coating for infrared to send infrared back in. Not CO2, the magic gas for heat retention and ball playing.
http://www.windowinfo.co.uk/doubleglazing-fensa-regulations.asp
Anderlan says:
July 26, 2010 at 7:49 am
I don’t need models. I know that there is warming being added (no matter what the net effect) that would not otherwise be there, and that we are playing around with the planet, using it as an experiment, already. If just half of the physics (or physics-related) PhD’s said there was cause for concern, that would be enough. The stipulated facts are that worrisome.
But with no models you end up hand waving. I can hand wave that the next ice age is right around the corner. It does not matter if there are thousands of PhDs handwaving.
They have to have calculations, and in the chaotic complicated climate conditions only models can calculate numerically, and models are as good or bad as their assumptions.
The worrisome stipulated facts, as you state are only stipulated by use of the IPCC GCM models, and these have been falsified, i.e. the real world data do not follow the IPCC predictions/projections.
James Sexton,
“By the logic used in regards to smoking bans, I should start a movement that criminalizes people that listen to rap. I’m certain I can get any number of hearing specialists to bear witness to the harm the rap player inflicts on other people. It should be my right to be able to go to a night club without having that noise inflicted upon my person and I should insist on that right.”
Be careful what you say. There’s probably some self righteous busy body somewhere that will go right ahead and do it.
Anderlan says:
July 26, 2010 at 7:49 am
“I don’t need models. I know that there is warming being added (no matter what the net effect) that would not otherwise be there, and that we are playing around with the planet, using it as an experiment, already.”
It always gets me how warmists trivialise the worlds energy use, by describing it as some sort of experiment. The idea of course is that if it’s just and “experiment” then we don’t need to do it, do we? We can just stop what we’re doing. The truth is nobody has any idea how to meet our energy needs without emitting CO2, and that’s why the mitigation lobby is falling apart. No, CO2 is not just some experiment, it is the single most important resource that underpins global civilization, and all the myriad wonders that we take for granted.
toby says-
‘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:…….’
Some of us, ancient heavy smokers like me, have had an interest in the anti-smoking argument ever since the late Professor Doll (he wasn’t a professor then, just a dermatologist), announced his hypothesis before he had started his questionnaire based data collection back about 1950. Sadly, there was no internet in those days and no medium via which the skeptics could voice their concerns about the shortcomings in Doll’s data collection models or his misuse of statistical manipulation. Doll won the day, but there is no evidence whatever that would meet the scientific method, that says that he was right.
Sorry! ‘models’ should read ‘methods’.
anna v says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Correct. N2 is the preferred gas for double glazing!
For its insulation properties, nothing to do with IR
DaveE.
anna v says:
July 25, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Forgot to mention in the above post; the other reason for using N2 is to increase the life of the aluminium spacer bars due to being relatively inert.
DaveE.
anna v
Oops, should have consulted my friends rather than memory.
Yes, Argon is the preferred gas & only for the inert properties.
Low E glass is an old concept 1st inception being Kappafloat from Pilkington glass of St. Helens, Lancashire.
New coatings can be toughened, unlike the old ‘soft’ coats which had to be applied after toughening
The latest thing is low iron glass which, in the UK has to use sand imported from Spain, then has to be heated more than 1000ºC above ‘normal’ sand to make glass. This allows better transmission of incoming light which is then retained as energy by the coating. (theoretically).
DaveE.
One day, the fool said, “Let’s Go! Let’s do it!” And the wise man said, “Stop! Wait and see!” On another day, the fool said, “Stop! Wait and see!” And the wise man said, “Let’s Go! Let’s do it!” The hardest thing you will ever have to do is determine who is who, every day of your life.