Author of MIT climate study says Trump got it wrong
- Thread starter Tony Stark
- Start date
HaHaHa, that is cruel but hilarious.
I'm a Scientist. I'm apparently one of the "3%" that thinks CO2 produced by humans is not causing significant global warming.* I'll go further to say that in my opinion the Hansen Hypothesis has been proven to be wrong. I am also 100 % in favor of the Paris Accord.
The truth is, and should anyone care to investigate they will easily prove this to be true, we are a long, long way from a consensus among meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric physicists. The ninety seven percent figure you keep seeing may be true if you include not just cosmologists but also cosmetologists in your survey.
I know ya'll are sick and tired of hearing this, but the media is no place to decide scientific questions. Physicist James Hansen could not get a consensus among his fellow scientists. Hansen resorted to hawking his hypothesis in the media and among politicians. If your eyebrows aren't raised by this, mine certainly are. Yes, he got lots of money for modeling studies. And yes, as long as a positive feedback mechanism is assumed, those early models can be programmed to predict rising temperatures if CO2 rises.
Unfortunately all the early models have been shown to be hugely defective. Furthermore there is now a mountain of evidence contradicting the Hansen hypothesis, i.e., "the Hansen guess". Probably Murray Salby, the well known atmospheric physicist, is correct, and it is temperature that is the independent variable and CO2 and likely methane too, are dependent variables. Water in its three physical states dominate all other substances when it comes to moderating the Earths surface temperature. The main sources of atmospheric heat are solar, geothermal and release of stored solar energy via combustion. It is possible that man's activities are affecting atmospheric heat, but it is not via CO2 emission which plays an extremely minor role. Carbon dioxide's major role is as a carbon source for plants.
I do not know if physicist, and former NASA Scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi's work has a fatal flaw. I'm not able to tell, but I admire his greatly simplified approach based on energy balance. NASA suppressed Miskolczi's paper because Miskolczi showed that feedback in the atmospheric temperature mechanism must be negative; not positive. This happens to be in agreement with my own view that I have stated here on ET, and of course retired MIT physicist-meteorologist Richard Lindzen** is of the same opinion. All positive feedback systems are inherently unstable.
Why did NASA suppress the publication of Miskolczi's paper under the NASA name? If it is wrong, let the reviewers be the judge, rather than a NASA administrator. In any case, the paper has now been peer reviewed and published. It is being subjected to fair and honest criticism. (There are not that many scientists capable of understanding Miskolczi's paper in fine detail. Papers like this typically take many months if not a few years to be thoroughly critiqued.)
To study something extremely complex and chaotic, such as the Earth's atmosphere, it might pay to take a step back, and rethink the entire problem. That's exactly what the brilliant John Maynard Keynes did when he was confronted with trying to understand the economy of a nation. He invented macroeconomics! This new approach to economics lifted the field out of the hopeless morass of microeconomics that Friedrich Hayek had found himself mired in. Perhaps Miskolczi is now leading us out of the global warming morass.
_____________________
*Please do not read anything other than what I have written. I am not stating a position on whether or not there is global warming caused by man's activity, or whether we are in a warming cycle or not.
**Last Febuary Lindzen sent a letter supported by a couple hundred scientist colleagues urging Trump to pull the U.S. out of the UN Climate Change Program. This got reported in the media as urging Trump to withdraw from the Paris Accord -- not exactly the same thing! I don't know Lindzen's view on the Accord. I know my view is we should support it fully. When it comes to politics scientists don't agree. When it comes to science they also don't agree. But there they have an infallible referee to decide whose right: Mother Nature!
What a teaming pile of horseshit. Again. You just keep repeating the same horseshit over and over again.
NO respected climate scientist denies it. None. The scientist you refer to Salby and Lindzen? Are fools and are of the feeble 1 % of relevant sceintists that deny, and even they don't deny man made global warming. Both are generally considered fools by the science community yet you defend them. Google it. Amazing. Something's fishy in Denmark.
The consensus among the experts is closer to 100%, among the publishing climatologists.
Why you are such a fool in this one area is a mystery. Unless of course you are working for a think tank for the fossil fuel intersts.
Merchant of doubt scum.
Can't defend tobacco anymore so you've moved to this. Scum.
Last edited:
You may be some kind of scientist but are a bipolar fool and very wrong about man made global warming. The Hansen hypothesis is called the greenhouse effect. It's happening, and there ARE positive feedbacks occuring. It's true and certainly proven, not in doubt. You are very fucking confused or just fucking lying.
And you keep trying to diminish and ad hom the argument calling "hansen's Hypothesis". More deceptive crap from you. No one calls it that. It's called climate modeling and it's certainly proving to be correct. Far from being in a state of confusion ( which doubt merchant scumbags like you of course want to encourage), climate science has never been more sure.
That's why no publishing climatologist denies man made global warming and the consensus is near 100%.
How much are they paying you to lie? Prick.
Last edited:
Something else about piehole's posts about climate change. Where is the science? Never a chart or a link to a respected paper or source. Just a steaming pile of impressive sounding bullshit.
And that's part of their strategy.
He is what the think tanks call a Trojan Horse. Win respect, sound reasonable and moderate, and then when he says absurd shit like "Climate science is in a state of confusion" and "Hansen's Hypothesis" is not proving correct", people will believe him. It's a brilliant strategy, especially for a one issue propaganda mission like sowing doubt about global warming.
Notice he doesn't deny it, he just sows doubt and that's his mission.
See the book "Merchants of Doubt" for more.
In their new book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.
Last edited:
By the way, if anyone doesn't believe that there are think tanks doing work on social media to spread doubt about the science of man made global warming, then they are naive and ignorant.