Scientific Data Does NOT Support Climate Change…

I Refuse To Follow Your Blog

When it comes to the climate of the earth there are many of you fearenvironmentalists that think that I’m off my rocker, but what if a Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist tells you what I’ve been trying to tell you but in a more scientific manner?  

If you don’t believe me, that’s fine…but when you disagree with a man who’s spent his entire life studying physics and scientific data, you’re just pathetic. 

My advice is that you start looking at the REAL data and stop listening to the fearenvironmentalists who are lying to you just so they can get their grant funding from the government. 

View original post

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Scientific Data Does NOT Support Climate Change…

    1. Thank you for your comment.

      Are you familiar with the name of a certain character in a child’s tale, Chicken Little? Instead of engaging in panicky name-calling, would you like to try to actually refute anything that Prof. Giaever said? Did he say anything that was difficult to understand? Did he lie?

      Please observe that the “buffoon” made the complex simple. As for Hansen, doesn’t he do the opposite? Why? Why do we find “experts,” non-buffoons like Hansen, constantly revising their theories? Why doesn’t the actual data look anything like their predictions?

      Like

  1. The blogger’s conclusion is correct, but an appeal to authority is no more valid an approach than is the “consensus” argument used by people like the commenter just above. The real issue is the data. Good, sound data doesn’t support the “destroy the planet” narrative, the polar ice caps are not following this narrative (with the north recovering rapidly from its lows in the 1930s and early 2010s and the south consistently breaking records). Even land ice in Antarctica is building over most of the continent, and the areas where a melt is suspected now turn out to be sitting over volcanic hotspots. Still no catastrophe, but moreover absolutely nothing to do with Man or CO2.

    Sea levels? They have risen, very slowly (a few inches per year) for the century-plus that we’ve had tide gages, with no sign in those tide gages of any increase. They’ve found a way to calculate this using a new theoretical approach that makes it seem like a small increase in recent years, but the tide gages laugh at this. And actual shorelines are physical tide gages, not theoretical isostatic geoid constructs that show a non-physical large mound of water sitting in the Pacific off of Japan.

    Florida’s sea-level increase plods along, just as it has for a century. No “global warming” effect at all. The poor “disappearing islands” of the Pacific have recently been shown to be stable in size; some are actually increasing, and major new construction is starting there as a result. Google turns all of this up quickly.

    But you should pay attention to sad buffoon James Hansen, whose endless trail of failed predictions should be ignored because the next ones are Super Serious. The data does not support him. Government agencies and now Big Green NGOs do.

    Dr. Giaver’s presentation is reasonable; he spends time showing the relatively small effects of what’s being discussed. Other sites are good at taking apart the dubious/sloppy/bogus statistics and hidden/adjusted data that “support” the dire predictions of imminent doom.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Notice that the physicist in question is older and in no threat of having his career ruined.

    A couple of weeks ago I sat in stunned amazement as my world class exo-planet hunting astronomer professor told a student that, “the scientific community supports global warming.”

    I’m about ready to get kicked out of class for asking too many questions and arguing against the widespread use of solar and wind power, which like global warming, are now unquestioned orthodoxy in all levels of public education.

    So I let that one go.

    Unlike the old fart physicist who is able to speak the truth without fear of retaliation, I’m an old fart who needs to stay in school and remain able to find a career.

    Like

  3. mastersamwise

    Let us look at some facts. There is a consensus of scientists who say man is substantially contributing to climate change. The word “cause” is usually inserted by those with an agenda. There is a smaller but no less accomplished consensus of scientists that refute the claims of the other scientists. Inductive knowledge being uncertain, I think the conversation shouldn’t be between climate alarmists and climate deniers but an honest evaluation of the facts relative to the geographic area in which the phenomenon occur. Dare I say it, we should dialogue.

    For example, I am against fossil fuels for two reasons. First, it is a finite resource. Someday, it is going to run out. I would rather be in the nation that has renewable energy sources already a staple of daily life than be the nation that has to painfully adjust with new and emerging technology being implemented out of dire necessity. Second, I never want our cities to look like Beijing.

    Like

    1. Consensus is just the herd instinct. I think it makes more sense to look at how well the Global Warming predictions have done, and the professor just puts the facts on the table.

      We are all sheep, but humans have this difference from the real thing. We are sheep who get to choose our shepherd. The Global Warming “consensus” is just sheep following pretentious sheep, sheep who think they know something. If the pretentious sheep cannot prove anything, what is the point in following them?

      Is there a finite supply of fossil fuels? I suppose so, but the current schemes for restricting their use are plainly crooked. Instead of reducing the use of fossil fuels, they reward the cronies of powerful politicians. Why would you want to be part of that consensus?

      Like

Comments are closed.