Should the Scientific Challenges of Dissident Nobel Laureates be answered?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

You're really not very good at this, are you Eugene?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or just pick any you like from this list, Eugene:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you think that some unknown skeptic with a website trumps Professor Richard Lindzen's credentials?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You just don't get it. It doesn't matter in science if you are religious leader of the planet or win every scientific and math prize ever offered. Those aren't credentials in science (or the law!) for having an expert opinion in a field where you don't work. Reality, not cult figures, is the only recognized authority.

Richard Lindzen's logical arguments are not fact-based and his fact-based arguments are not logical.

 

Fundamentally Richard is right.

 

Any time you're ready to sequentially go through the points made in the opening video I'll be willing to listen.

 

Enough. You are showing videos of the wrong consensus. Look at THIS interactive consensus:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

These climate SATELLITE images, many of them from climate satellites LAUNCHED BY SIR ISAAC NEWTON HIMSELF clearly show that since 1884, the average climate has been getting warmer by TENTHS OF A DEGREE!!!!!!! If everyone is not alarmed enough to stop driving personal automobiles, put out all those campfires and breathe slower, science will not be able to help when you suffocate or are overcome by heat. Additionally, if you could just seal the remains of yourselves and your deceased loved ones in biodegradable plastic bags, it would make much less atmospheric methane (a greenhouse gas) emissions in the near term.

 

So you won't listen to rpenner's response in post 6 because his answers are in the wrong order? You certainly don't have a denilist agenda...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Look the

If your serious about the climate and such. Visit this site;


http://drtimball.com

Simple as that.

 

Dissenting views are interesting but that does not negate the 1000's of climatologist that this guy disagrees with.

Simple as that.

 

You would think this WITHOUT reading Tim's book. Read the book.

 

First of all, it tells me that he didn't even watch the video. That opening video is the topic of debate, not the anti-Ivar Giaever diatribe that rpenner is copying and pasting from.

 

Dr. Ball's opinions would play much better if his climate media/productions were not funded in substantial measure by the fossil fuel industry. Anyone so involved should publicly recuse participation in climate debates due to a conflict of interest.

This seems to be the pattern of the videos selected by Eugene and a few of his supporters are providing as evidence that global warming is a hoax. A noted chemist, after giving a diatribe about Roy Spencer (strongly anti-global warming and team leader of temperature monitoring satellite projects), digressed at one point into a discussion of how democracies always fail, and the the founding fathers anticipated this when they framed the United States to be a constitutional republic. He also talked about how the fossil fuel industry was responsible for making prosperity possible for up-and-coming nations. I suppose he was talking about China, but it wasn't really clear.

It made me want to gag. If that wasn't a political agenda, I don't know what would be, frankly. And he was supposed to be talking about the POLITICS associated with global warming. Politics cuts both ways. Speakers associated with the fossil fuel industry are naturally not going to like the idea of democracy, much less one in which their wealth does not receive a commensurate amount of influence over anything affecting they way they do business. If nothing else is clear, it is that politics most definitely is a large part of the global warming controversy, at least since Al Gore ran for president.

Anyone not willing to adhere to a policy of better ethics and recuse themselves of any conflicts of interest in the matter of prudent political steps to avert catastrophic climate change is going to have a bad day, and not just because of the weather. Nature usually gives us ample warning of foul weather ahead, if you pay attention to the signs.

 

I bet that you crapped your pants when you heard that.

Your naivete is hilarious. Or are you joking?

 

Maybe a little. It's hard to resist in a discussion this serious.

 

Why believe a majority of scientists in anything if most of them are willing to prostitute themselves for funding?

 

If that were true, then we should not of course. But it isn't.

This sounds like what I call the "Gerry Adams" defence, whereby you accuse your adversary of the very thing you yourself are guilty of, as a smokescreen

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. It is the anti-climate change lobby that is notoriously well-funded, from the bottomless pockets of the Koch bros and similar.

 

Let's see your evidence that the sources I cited in this thread received questionable money from any industry.

 

I've heard Dr. Ball deny receiving money from the fossil fuel industry. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

 

from:
http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html

As to the claim that Tim Ball is/was a professor in the Climatology Department at the University of Winnipeg, “the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology” source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle.

Although this UK film has also been criticized on the basis of not presenting a completely impartial analysis, it nevertheless won several broadcasting awards for the documentary it tried to do, and is far and away more impartial a treatment of the global warming issue than anything of its kind produced on this side of the Atlantic.

I'm plugging my ears again, Eugene. Enough is enough. I read: "How to Lie with Statistics" (a classic) a very long time ago. I'm not seeing anything like an honest graph from either side of this debate that could be characterized as compelling evidence that political games are not being played with this issue.

Finally, this is supposed to be a science forum. I suggest this thread be moved to from "Science and Society" to "Politics" where it really belongs.