[Climate Change] Lake Erie up to 60% Covered in Ice

Can you answer me a question?

How do Denialists decide who gets to play the coveted role of "Guy who posts evidence that validates global warming and misinterpets it in favor of denialism" - most of which are of the "DAMN, IT'S COLD SO MUCH 4 GLOBAL WARMING HAR HAR" variety.

It seems like it's sort of a title belt that gets passed around between and among various doltish dunderheads but usually the role is only played by one person at a time.

 

He's a scientist who studies semi-conductors, not climate. Notice he doesn't even provide a scientific reason for why he disagrees with climate change. He's also a science advisor for the Heartland Institute - that means he gets paid by them, that Koch brothers money.

You keep using people who are paid by big oil to dismiss climate science. See a pattern?

 

*giggle*


Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever: Obama Is ‘Dead Wrong’ on Climate Change

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/08/nobel-ivar-giaever-obama-climate-change/#XW3wYaeJkVMBO5r5.99

Shortly after Dr. Giaever delivered his speech, his comments about President Obama began appearing on conservative web sites, cited as proof that global warming is a “hoax” and a “conspiracy.” However, Dr. Giaever (a physicist, not a climatologist) has given the same type of global warming speech in the same setting before, and by his own admission he doesn’t know much about the subject

I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so — half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.

Skeptical Science noted of Dr. Giaever back in 2012 that:

While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows. He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101, and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion.

Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which he has not even done the most basic research. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized.

Climate change conspiracy buffs focused solely on Dr. Giaever while ignoring others who also addressed the issue of global warming at the 65th Nobel Laureate Meeting. On the final day of the meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection, stating that “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions”:

 

Actually it's just science and caring about what happens to the billions of people who will be affected. I think for you it's just politics. And to the people you quote. You're the one towing a party line and believing in myths spready by ultra-conservative blogs.

I don't see science as political, and when 97%+ of of climatologists (not physicists) talk about gloom and doom, I believe them.

I think the real reason conservatives attack climate science is because they think the net result with be carbon taxes and a restriction on their way of life. I am not for a carbon tax, I think it's useless to addressing a problem of this magnitude. I don't think we should destroy our economy or that of the developing world. But global warming will be a huge net negative at some point in the future. And the further we go along, the more trouble we will find ourselves in.

So what to do? First is to stop denying the science for political reasons. It's just crazy to do that. There are plenty of Republicans who believe in climate change. We can find solutions that don't involve driving small cars or carbon taxes. We don't have to punish big oil and they can stop funding quasi science and such to dismiss climate change for their short term profits.

Instead we need a global initiative to develop fusion power. A trillion dollar fund to create a feasible fussion reactor that can help supply energy needs and make reducing CO2 possible. Oil companies should lead the effort and become true energy companies, and not just about oil.

 

I think his point is that when you cite people who are on the Koch payroll, you are playing politics. Bringing up the politics of this crap isn't playing politics. Citing politically funded research is playing politics.

 

The dumbest part of the climate change just being a US government conspiracy theory argument is it completely ignores other countries that are also taking measures to reduce their carbon footprint and become more green.

 

What's funny is there is a wikipedia entry on folks like rojo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

 

It really doesn't matter how many signed it or didn't sign it. It's the fact the guy you use to allegedly debunk climate change is a physicist who by his own admission doesn't spend much time thinking about it. Sort of lame.

 

That was quite a leap. However, climate change has become the "evolution" of the 21st century to certain types of conservatives. You'd think there wasn't a religious motivation, but those evangicals think it's heretical to suggest that man has the ability to destroy the earth.

 

It's so interesting because I thought it was motivated by political beliefs. It just is so amazing to see people believe in crazy things because of their system of beliefs. Imagine what things were like 1000's of years ago. No wonder people believed in demons and witches and all of that stuff. Or that the earth was the center of the universe and those who disagreed were heretics.

One day people will talk about climate change and study deniers and what motivated them. I wonder if at some point they will ever be able to come to terms with it say in 40 years when it will be so obvious that it has impacted their lives or if they will still say - hey it was colder than average today - seeeeeee global warming is b.s.!

 

You found someone with subject matter expertise in an unrelated area who plays sweet music (for cash of course) for the general population of denialist dip****s - I'm unclear as to how this shifts the burden of proof? Or even answers my question regarding who gets to do the "baby its cold outside herp derp conspiracy" act.

You are disappointing

 

No, it's more like you trying to debunk evolution with someone who has a degree in accounting. What? Yeah, exactly. Why do you care what a physicist has to say about anything but physics?

 

There have been many many threads on this topic with tons of source material. That you continue to claim to not see them just shows how deeply you are in denial on this issue or that you are just trolling.

Frankly you are beginning to sound like a Birther continually denying that Obama was born in Hawaii even though several pieces of evidence have been shown.