Uh oh! The majority of Nobel Prize winning scientists don't sign global warming statement
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Two take aways from this article, and they are Dr. Giaever's own statements: 1) he admits global warming is occurring (0.8 degrees in the last 100 years and 2) he admits that the sea level is rising, 20 cm in the last 100 years.
global warming is like religion. there are believers of it and do so by faith. the atheistic or agnostic view of global warming is to deny or doubt it because the explanation and solutions for it are base in politics. Faith in it happening or not is also a politically influenced.
No one disputes the globe has warmed slightly in the past 100 years. The big question is man's role and most scientists at that conference decided not to sign a statement blaming global warming on man.
Here's how this works. All this science stuff, meetings, yadda, yadda, go on all the time, on various issues. With regards to global warming by and large the content reflects the current scientific thought, which is that global warming is occurring and humans are causing it. Like most of the science world, none of this gets much coverage. Unless it happens that it can be spun by political people for their political reasons.
Various political websites are devoted solely to spotting BS that can spun to push their views. They find some and put it up and the readers, who are on that particular website solely to find red meat to support their particular cause, lap it up and distribute it. WVPATX on this site is a prime example. Whether it's true or makes any sense is irrelevant to them.
The particular guy in that video is not a climate scientist and in addition he's on record to admitting he doesn't know much about the issue. But it doesn't matter because someone can distribute a clip of a Nobel winner saying something to support someones politics and that's all that matters.
Also, a majority of Nobel winners at that conference did not refuse to sign the proclamation like that article says, as a minimum of research shows, but it doesn't matter because whoever puts that article up knows the partisans aren't going to check it anyway.
This is how politics works. It's so much BS. And yet some people take it as truth. You could live your entire life doing nothing but reading non-political stuff on the Internet and learning more and more and more and never touch politics. And you could become the most learned person in the world on a variety of subjects. But as soon as whatever it is you've learned about becomes a political issue the BS spin machines on every side starts. And people who live their lives lapping up what the spin machines are never going to believe anything other than what the spin machine is spewing out. Period.
Various political websites are devoted solely to spotting BS that can spun to push their views. They find some and put it up and the readers, who are on that particular website solely to find red meat to support their particular cause, lap it up and distribute it. WVPATX on this site is a prime example. Whether it's true or makes any sense is irrelevant to them.
The particular guy in that video is not a climate scientist and in addition he's on record to admitting he doesn't know much about the issue. But it doesn't matter because someone can distribute a clip of a Nobel winner saying something to support someones politics and that's all that matters.
Also, a majority of Nobel winners at that conference did not refuse to sign the proclamation like that article says, as a minimum of research shows, but it doesn't matter because whoever puts that article up knows the partisans aren't going to check it anyway.
This is how politics works. It's so much BS. And yet some people take it as truth. You could live your entire life doing nothing but reading non-political stuff on the Internet and learning more and more and more and never touch politics. And you could become the most learned person in the world on a variety of subjects. But as soon as whatever it is you've learned about becomes a political issue the BS spin machines on every side starts. And people who live their lives lapping up what the spin machines are never going to believe anything other than what the spin machine is spewing out. Period.
the church is infallible on issues of morals and faith but is not on economics or science. I suspect you haven't read the encyclical but the premise of what he said focused on the poor not information from God.
If you take the premise it is a religion because the Pope has signed on do you accept and live Jesus as your savior and follow him because the Pope does so as well?
As this Nobel Prize winning scientists wrote, warmists is a religion not science. When the facts disprove the theory, change the theory, don't change the facts. And yes, most scientists at this conference refused to sign the petition. Al Gore and Obama not pleased. And this scientists was a supporter of Obama.
36 out of the 65 Nobel Laureates signed it. Is that more than half? And it wasn't a petition. Do you have any idea what it was about or how it came about? No, nor do you care.
Do you have reading comprehension problems?
A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration. As is typical of the supression of the alternate views on climate, we never heard the opinion of the 35 who were in the majority. Today, one of the nobel laureates who was an attendee has spoken out.
As I said before, part of the problem is that people believe this hyper-partisan websites without bother to question them. Has it occurred to you that although they said 30 signed that it simply wasn't true? It's possibly they were simply mistaken but I think it's just as likely that they simply made up a number less than half since saying "less than half" sounds nice.
http://www.lindau-nobel.org/
Did you go to the link I provided, which is the website of the conference itself? It says there that 36 signed it and if you click it will give you their names. The initial article you linked to is simply flat out wrong.
No, "libs" don't say that. What people say is the 97% of the CLIMATE scientists worldwide agree with the notion of Anthropomorphic Global Warming. Not all scientists, just the ones that ... you know ... actually study the climate for a living.
Do you know why the other 29 didn't sign it? It probably isn't because they don't believe it, it's probably because they don't study climate science and therefore couldn't ethically sign something for a subject they don't study.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
65th Meeting
A record number of 65 laureates and more than 650 young scientists from about 90 countries are participating in the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting. It is the fourth interdisciplinary meeting, bringing together Nobel Laureates and young scientists from the fields of physiology and medicine, physics, and chemistry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just because they didn't sign it, doesn't mean that you can immediately jump to the conclusion that they think it's not true, it could just be that they don't study it enough to put their name to it.
If you aren't an engineer or scientist, then you have no idea how much ethics drive the professions.
Are you seriously trying to say that wattsupwiththat.com is probably more reliable than the website of the organization that ran the conference?
Of course ... any website that agrees with his position is more credible than any website that doesn't.
I am not sure where i said that. The credibility of whatever source would not change what he believed but nice try attenpting to put words in my mouth. You got one fool to agree with you.
You said that he believes the story he wants to believe and attacks the story that shakes his faith. That may be germane if he's putting up salon.com against the original source. It's another thing when he's putting up the conference website.
And I'll say it before anyone else has the chance, "What the H do the GD Germans have to do with it?"
It has never made a difference prior to now with op2. I was not making a general comment. I specifically replied to op2 and i didnt pay much attention to where his link or the originl link references because with that poster the relevance or credibility of the link has only mattered when it has helped him.
Here's something all of the scientists know that you don't. The models are "wrong" and they will always be "wrong". It's the nature of predictive modeling. The more data you get to validate the model and make tweaks the more accurate the model will get, but it's always going to be "wrong" as far as absolutely nailing what's going to happen.
You're the only one that thinks people are panicking over that. The scientists certainly aren't, and neither is anybody that knows anything about modeling and simulation.