Zero CO2?

The scary part is not having enough CO2..!! Currently we have near 400 ppm & “if” planet Earth fell to 200 ppm, we would undoubtedly face starvation ; don’t need a hypothesis, it’s a fact.!
……………….
It is not simply Crops taking longer to reach harvest… most would not ripen at all and many would fail to mature seasonally ; those that did, would produce insufficient yields…
………………..
With less CO2, means less Tree & plant life overall.! This means less conversion to Oxygen through photosynthesis & less cleansing of the natural environment.
…………………
Most scary part ; many AGW Alarmists actually “think” we should aim for zero CO2 because in their blind faith ; CO2 causes Global Warming? Yet they can’t see the “real” path to extinction.!
………………….

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IT IS TIME TO TAKE A STAND

Why Refugees? By Michael D Funk

Have you ever stopped to consider why there are refugees? Why don’t they just stand together and fight back against an overly aggressive government such as ISIS? I believe the answer is fundamental to the freedom we enjoy here in the USA—a freedom we are dangerously close to losing if we make hasty emotional decisions based on recent human tragedies.

One of the safeguards we have been constitutionally guaranteed is the right to bear arms. Countries such as Syria and Iraq do not have this right. That means when a group such as ISIS forces its government on a people who do not have the means to protect themselves there are only two choices—be slaughtered or flee and seek asylum in another country.

The Second Amendment gives us a third choice—fight back. And, in fact, this is the primary reason it is part of our constitution. Some think that the reason we have it is only for recreational shooting and hunting. But those who think this way have not studied our history and do not understand why we became a nation to begin with. Nor how important it is to guard and protect the freedom we now have.

These freedoms are seriously under attack and it is entirely up to us whether we keep them in place or not. That means every American citizen must do his/her part in maintaining these freedoms for future generations to enjoy. Otherwise when our ‘well meaning’ government and liberal philosophies restrict these rights and even seek to eliminate the right through gun confiscation we are only one step away from having an out of control government take us over just like ISIS is doing in the Middle East.

That is why it is so important not to exploit these terrible tragedies for a political purpose that in the end will not serve the American people well. I urge you to think this thing through, change your mind about the issue if you need to and vote for those who will unequivocally support the US Constitution. And, in the meantime, let your elected officials know exactly where you stand on this issue. And if you haven’t yet taken a stand, now would be a great time to do so.

IT IS TIME TO TAKE A STAND and IT IS TIME TO GET INVOLVED.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Thanks to Tony Heller

“Atmospheric CO2 has risen by 100 parts per million (one part per ten thousand) over the past century. Experts claim that this one molecule has heated the other 10,000 molecules up by more than one degree centigrade.

In order for one molecule to heat up 10,000 other molecules by 1°C, the effective temperature of that one molecule would have to be 10,000°C – about twice the temperature of the surface of the Sun.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What’s True and What’s False in Obama’s Latest Global Warming Claims.

Stream: What’s True and What’s False in Obama’s Latest Global Warming Claims
by Briggs

Today’s post is at The Stream: The Stream: What’s True and What’s False in Obama’s Latest Global Warming Claims.What’s True and What’s False in Obama’s Latest Global Warming Claims.

There is so much hyperbolic language surrounding the topic of global warming that it is becoming nearly impossible to distinguish points that are true, those that might be true or false, and those that are false. So let us take a gentle approach in the hope that we may reach what the philosopher David Hume called “the calm sunshine of the mind.”

President Obama unveiled his global warming plan yesterday. In it, he said that the earth’s climate has been changing. I am an actual climate scientist and can verify that this is true. And not only that, it always has changed. There was never, not ever, a point in the history of our planet in which the climate was static. This is such an important but always-forgotten point that it must be repeated. So let’s do that: the earth’s climate has always changed.
Check out The Stream for the details!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A co-founder of Greenpeace tells the truth on CO2

Watts Up With That?

Dr. Patrick Moore, who was one of the original founders of Greenpeace who left the organization in disgust of their current political zealotry, and Greenpeace is now trying to have him erased from history for daring to do that. He has now produced this interesting video in conjunction with with Prager University that is sure to put some people into conniption fits.

Global Warming activists will tell you that CO2 is bad and dangerous. The EPA has even classified it as a pollutant. But is it? Patrick Moore provides some surprising facts about the benefits of CO2 that you won’t hear in the current debate. 

View original post

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The left’s spin on Repbulicans and Climate Change

They’d Roll Obama’s Climate Agenda
by Ryan Koronowski Jul 26, 2015 10:01am

The GOP field is (almost) complete, after Ohio Governor John Kasich became the 17th major candidate to announce his presidential run this week. This means we can draw some conclusions about the opponent the eventual Democratic nominee will be facing in the general election.
It’s an extremely safe bet that the Republican nominee will not take more action to confront climate change than President Obama has. The question is more how much of the president’s climate agenda the nominee would reverse, repeal, or ignore.
The next president will have a lot on his or her plate — implementing or rolling back the Clean Air Act’s provisions to regulate carbon pollution; defying or leading the world in carrying out an expected U.N. climate agreement; committing the United States to low-carbon energy or doubling down on fossil fuels. Pope Francis just told the world through the Vatican’s latest encyclical that climate change is happening, caused by humans, and requires “urgent” policy. The train is slowly accelerating down the tracks, and the person who takes over in 2017 can decide whether to speed it along, slow it down, or throw the engine dramatically into reverse.
If recent public opinion polls have been consistent on one thing, it’s the partisan divide between Democrats who believe climate change is a concern that should be addressed through policy, and Republicans who often doubt the problem exists in the first place. However, a January poll found that 48 percent of Republicans were more likely to vote for a candidate who supports acting on climate change and the same percentage would be less likely to vote for a candidate that thought climate change was a hoax.
So here is the GOP presidential field, ranked by how far they would walk back President Obama’s climate agenda, from least to most:
17. George Pataki

Pataki was the governor of New York three governors ago. He is running for president almost ten years after he left office. Unfortunately for Pataki, his presidential bid is among the longest of long shots.
In 2007, he joined a blue-ribbon commission with several people who would join the Obama administration that concluded climate change was an urgent threat that required legislative action, most likely a cap-and-trade system.
Since his announcement, however, he has not talked about climate change, and it is unclear how much of a priority he would make it.
16. Lindsey Graham

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. announces his bid for presidency, Monday, June 1, 2015, in Central, S.C.
CREDIT: AP Photo/Rainier Ehrhardt
The senior senator from South Carolina became famous in climate circles for first helping to draft, and then kill, the Senate’s cap-and-trade bill after the House passed its own version in 2009.
By way of explanation, Graham sounded a note of denial. “The science about global warming has changed,” he said. “I think they’ve oversold this stuff, quite frankly. I think they’ve been alarmist and the science is in question.”
He agrees carbon pollution should be regulated whether or not it causes climate change. His focus became more on pollution associated with burning fossil fuels. But following the climate bill’s demise, Graham did not push through any legislation that would address pollution.
After he announced his presidential run, however, Graham seemed to take up the banner of climate change again. “If I’m president of the United States, we’re going to address climate change, CO2 emissions in a business-friendly way,” he told CNN.
He said people should ask other candidates, “What is the environmental policy of the Republican party?”
“When I ask that question, I get a blank stare.”
While addressing emissions in a business-friendly way could mean any number of things, a Graham presidency would not start out the gate trying to put President Obama’s climate agenda into reverse.
15. John Kasich

“I am a believer — my goodness I am a Republican — I happen to believe there is a problem with climate change,” Kasich said at an energy conference in 2012. “I don’t want to overreact to it, I can’t measure it all, but I respect the creation that the Lord has given us and I want to make sure we protect it.”
His refusal to overreact to it has led to a refusal to act on it as well. In 2011, he signed a bill — which was opposed by 70 percent of Ohioans — that opened up state parks and other public lands to drilling and fracking. He supports clean coal and is skeptical about cutting emissions without waiting for China and India to go first. And he spiked the wheel of a successful renewable energy program benefiting the Buckeye State.
In June 2014, he signed a bill passed by the state legislature that would freeze the Renewable Portfolio Standard, despite its popularity among Ohioans and industry. The program had also saved consumers $230 million, created 25,000 jobs, and spurred $1 billion in private investment.
Kasich might be open to some version of climate action should he win, but his actions, which are slowing down progress in his own state, signal caution.
14. Carly Fiorina

With her private-sector experience, Carly Fiorina engages with climate change from an economic perspective.
“Companies shouldn’t cave in to the demands of climate change scientists,” she has said.
Fiorina blamed “liberal environmentalists” for the historic, climate-related drought in California on Glenn Beck’s radio show this year. But even if she were to accept the idea that climate change played a role in her state’s drought, she is skeptical that anyone should do anything about it.
“What all the scientists also tell us is that a single state, or single nation acting alone can make no difference acting alone,” she told MSNBC. “If we want to accept the science, we have to read the fine print.”
“California can be the most onerous regulatory regime in the world, which they are, and it won’t make a bit of difference in climate change,” she said.
While running for senate in 2010, Fiorina criticized California’s nation-leading cap-and-trade program as “massively destructive,” which has not proved to be accurate. A report earlier this year found that emissions are down and the economy is expanding.
In 2009, she said, “‘I think we should have the courage to examine the science on an ongoing basis.”
13. Chris Christie

In 2011, the New Jersey governor acknowledged the effects humans have on climate change.
“I can’t claim to fully understand all of this,” he said. “Certainly not after just a few months of study. But when you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role it’s time to defer to the experts.”
Christie said again this year that he thought climate change was real and that humans contributed to it. But in 2013, he rejected the notion that Hurricane Sandy’s damage was worsened by climate change.
As far as doing something about climate change, Christie is a true skeptic. He has said that the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a Northeast cap-and-trade program that aims to collectively reduce carbon pollution from power plants, was a “completely useless plan.” He withdrew New Jersey from the plan in 2011, and said that he would “not think of rejoining it.” He also cut his state’s renewable energy target.
A New Jersey appeals court ruled that the governor illegally withdrew the state from it in 2014.
A President Christie would not deny there was a problem, but given his success at dismantling an effective state solution to cut emissions and grow revenue, it’s unlikely he would allow the Clean Power Plan to proceed.
12. Jeb Bush

Bush’s position has been hard to pin down at times, though if he does address climate change it will not be because of either science or religion.
The establishment favorite has said people who accept mainstream climate science are “really arrogant.”
In 2009, he told Esquire he was a skeptic, and “not a scientist.”
“I think the science has been politicized. I would be very wary of hollowing out our industrial base even further,” he said, before saying he doubted whether it was really warming at all. “I think we need to be very cautious before we dramatically alter who we are as a nation because of it,” he concluded.
Then again, Bush can sometimes strike a more moderate tone. “The climate is changing, and I’m concerned about that,” he told a group in New Hampshire in April. “I don’t think it’s the highest priority. I don’t think we should ignore it, either,” he said. “Just generally I think as conservatives we should embrace innovation, embrace technology, embrace science.”
When the pope released his encyclical this year, Bush was skeptical. “I don’t get my economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope.”
He has advocated for more incentives for fracking, with the idea this would increase natural gas production and replace higher-polluting coal. However, he was happy to meet with a group of coal barons with the hope of raising money from them, so a (third) President Bush may very well stick with all fossil fuels.
11. Jim Gilmore

The former Virginia governor has said he will announce his candidacy the first week of August. He’s an asterisk in the polls, barely has a political operation, and has not said much about climate and energy. If a long list of competitors stumble and Gilmore has a decent shot at the nomination, there is not much to go on when predicting what he would do on climate change and energy policy.
He’s been uncertain over the role human activity plays in warming the globe in the past.
“We know the climate is changing, but we do not know for sure how much is caused by man and how much is part of a natural cycle change,” Gilmore said in a 2008 voter guide for the Virginia senate race against Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA). “I do believe we must work toward reducing emissions without damaging our fragile economy.”
Gilmore has also espoused fossil fuel production of all kinds, and said he opposed the Kyoto Protocol. It’s unlikely he would support another U.N. agreement or the Clean Power Plan.
10. Ben Carson

The famed neurosurgeon has said “we may be warming, we may be cooling.” In an interview with Bloomberg in Iowa, Carson expressed support for building the Keystone XL pipeline. He also said “our Environmental Protection Agency should be told to work in conjunction with business, industry and universities to find the most eco-friendly ways of developing our energy resources.”
It’s unclear what a President Carson would do about climate change, though with what he has said so far, he likely would not see it as a pressing issue.
9. Rand Paul

The libertarian senator has said he’s “not sure anybody exactly knows why” climate change is happening. He said “the conclusions you make from that are not conclusive;” however “we should minimize pollution,” but not through “onerous regulation.”
As far as addressing climate change through legislation, Paul has said “all I ask for is that the solution has to be a balanced solution and you have to account for jobs and jobs lost by regulation.”
His reaction to actual things people are trying to do to solve this problem tells a different story, however. Last year, he called the EPA’s proposed rule to regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act illegal.
“I think if you want to pass legislation, try to get it through Congress,” he said. “Come and talk to us. Convince us it’s a good idea.” The Clean Air Act, passed by Congress, directs the EPA to regulate pollution, including carbon dioxide.
While he has struck a slightly more moderate tone on pollution, he still questions climate science and opposes policies that do anything about the problem. It’s unlikely Paul would address it through government action.
8. Marco Rubio

While still a state legislator, Rubio thought action on climate change, including “emissions caps and energy diversification,” led to economic and technological trends that meant “Florida should become the Silicon Valley of [the energy] industry.” He also voted for a bill that would regulate greenhouse gases.
Once he reached the national level, he changed his tune. Rubio was one of the first politicians to attempt the “I’m not a scientist” tactic to deny the reality of mainstream climate science. He has since moved to more outright denial.
“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” he said after telling the world he could be president. “I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy.”
He called it “absurd” that laws could “change our weather.”
The senator from Florida risks alienating a key voting bloc that overwhelmingly supports acting on climate change, as well as inundating his home state with rising oceans.
7. Bobby Jindal

Jindal says the degree of connection between human activity and climate change is unknown.
“Nobody disputes that the climate is always changing,” an energy policy paper released by his America Next advocacy group said. “The question is what is the role of humans in that change — and what, if any, dangers that change presents for Americans.”
Jindal told reporters that humans do affect the climate, but “the real question is how much.”
After all, he can’t be expected to know about climate science because he is “not a scientist.”
His uncertainty about climate change does not seem to impact what a President Jindal would do on energy. His plan calls for more oil and gas drilling, reversing environmental protections, and withdrawing from the U.N. climate talks. He said climate change was “simply a Trojan Horse” for governmental regulation.
Jindal has also demanded the EPA rescind its determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare and signed on to a letter to the president in protest of the new EPA Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon pollution.
6. Rick Perry

The former Texas governor doesn’t seem certain which climate denier trope he will settle on. He has accused climate scientists of manipulating data for money,
Though his environmental record in Texas was largely abysmal, he did sign legislation setting a renewable energy target that helped Texas lead the nation in wind power production. He also signed a water infrastructure bill that could help Texas mitigate some impacts of climate-driven drought and flood extremes.
Those positive developments — especially the state’s drop in emissions — had many other causes and drivers unrelated to Perry’s views about energy policy and climate change, however. Perry advocates for wide-ranging fossil fuel extraction and said he would approve the Keystone XL pipeline “on day one” should he be elected.
He would be extremely unlikely to do much about climate change at the federal level.
5. Mike Huckabee

In 2007, the former governor of Arkansas said “it’s all our responsibility to fix” climate change and advocated for a cap-and-trade system to cut emissions. Three years later, he denied ever saying such a thing.
More recently, he talked with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) about what a hoax climate change is, and this year compared global warming to a “sunburn.”
“Mr. President, I believe that most of us would think that a beheading is a far greater threat to an American than a sunburn,” he told a crowd in Iowa, referring to ISIS’ killing of hostages.
When the EPA proposed regulating carbon pollution from power plants, Huckabee engaged in fearmongering over electricity rates, saying the regulations would “bankrupt families” — a claim that’s not true.
With his newfound climate denial zeal and skepticism of EPA regulation, Huckabee would most likely slow or reverse the president’s Clean Power Plan.
4. Scott Walker

Walker has thus far kept quiet on his views about climate science.
Recently, the governor of Wisconsin upped his game opposing action on climate change, however. He called President Obama’s proposed rule to regulate carbon pollution from power plants “unworkable” and pledged to fight it in court. He suggested gutting the EPA, saying he would take “major portions of the funding and responsibilities of the federal government … and send it back to the states.”
Walker signed Grover Norquist’s “No Climate Tax Pledge.” This means he committed to “oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.”
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that little has been done to combat climate change under Walker’s administration. “After an intense focus on climate change under Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled Legislature have devoted little attention to such issues.”
Rather than relying on bombastic climate denial, Walker’s approach to environmental and energy issues has been rooted in a low-key, consistent, and arguably more effective and dangerous implementation of anti-environment tactics in state government.
In 2011, Walker pushed to eliminate state subsidies to cities and towns to operate recycling programs, and more recently proposed an end to funding a renewable bioenergy research center (despite a recent Iowa-inspired reversal on ethanol subsidies). He’s pushed to interfere with wind turbine placement while helping to pave the way for a “frac sand” mining industry that threatens the environment and public health.
Walker’s record concerns environmentalists, but it’s likely his past — and potentially future — electoral success that concerns them more.
3. Donald Trump

The billionaire businessman doubts the reality of climate change as well as policies that attempt to address it, judging by past statements and his twitter feed. He has said “the EPA is an impediment to both growth and jobs.” He supports fracking and has a long-running vendetta against wind farms that are within sight of his properties.
“I’m a huge believer in clean air,” he told Jake Tapper last month. “I’m not a huge believer in the global warming phenomenon.”
When Tapper responded that most scientists say it’s real and man-made, Trump said “there could be some man-made too, I’m not saying there’s zero, but not nearly to the extent — when Obama gets up and said it’s the number one problem for our country, and if it is, why is it that we have to clean up our factories now and China doesn’t have to do it for another 30 to 35 years?”
Trump admitted he was being sarcastic when he tweeted that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
Like many other issues, a Trump presidency would not treat addressing climate change in a serious manner.
2. Rick Santorum

The former Pennsylvania senator doubts the scientific consensus on climate change, saying it is “speculative science, which has proven over time not to have checked out,” and a “beautifully concocted scheme.” In fact, he said he was more qualified to talk about climate change than the pope last month when the Vatican released its historic encyclical on climate change.
“The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science,” Santorum told a radio host a week earlier.
“I refer to global warming as not climate science, but political science,” Santorum said during his last presidential run. “A lot of these environmental sciences are just that — political sciences. They have nothing to do with … real understanding of how we have to value both the environment and its impact on man and the world.”
He’s said that anything the U.S. could do on climate change would have “zero impact” unless other countries act — barring, assumedly, agreements with other countries to limit emissions. In April, after Santorum criticized EPA regulation limiting mercury pollution from power plants, FactCheck.org ruled that his criticisms were inaccurate.
If he opposed regulating mercury pollution, it is difficult to see a President Santorum thinking positively about regulating carbon dioxide. In 2012, he joked, “tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is.”
1. Ted Cruz

Cruz doubts what he calls the “pseudoscientific theory” that tells scientists human activity causes climate change. He also told CNN that in “the last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming.” The junior senator from Texas has compared his climate denial to the intellectual bravery of Galileo.
After 35 trillion gallons of water fell on his home state, Cruz was asked about the role climate change played. He said, “I think it’s wrong to try to politicize a natural disaster.” Scientists, including experts in Texas, disagreed, with one calling Cruz’s denial of scientific reality “shameful.”
Cruz has introduced legislation that would expand oil and gas drilling, approve the Keystone XL pipeline, prevent the federal government from regulating fracking, and curtail EPA regulations. He says he supports an “all of the above” energy policy, which to him means allowing the private sector to decide what energy sources are best.
He relies on his denial of mainstream scientific consensus to inform his policy positions. “The federal government has no business attempting to massively reorder the global economy, resulting in policies that kill jobs and keep people from rising out of poverty, all in the name of a theory that can’t be proven or disproven,” he told National Journal in February.
So barring a change of heart on the science, Cruz is likely to be the candidate who most diligently rolls back policies to cut carbon pollution.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong!

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.
“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.”

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize. Giaever is also featured in the new documentary “Climate Hustle”, set for release in Fall 2015.
Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”
But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”
“That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.
“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)
“How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.
“Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [Note: Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change. See: Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming]
The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears.
“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.

Global Warming ‘a new religion’
Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.
“Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”
Concern Over ‘Successful’ UN Climate Treaty
“I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November. I really worry about that. Because the [2009 UN] conference was in Copenhagen and that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position,” Giaever said.
“The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.
“I would say that the global warming is basically a non-problem. Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. It is almost very hard for me to understand why almost every government in Europe — except for Polish government — is worried about global warming. It must be politics.”
“So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue with one exception — we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming. We have to do that or that may take us backwards. People think that is sustainable but it is not sustainable.
On Global Temperatures & CO2
Giaever noted that global temperatures have halted for the past 18 plus years. [Editor’s Note: Climate Depot is honored that Giaever used an exclusive Climate Depot graph showing the RSS satellite data of an 18 year plus standstill in temperatures at 8:48 min. into video.]

Giaever accused NASA and federal scientists of “fiddling” with temperatures.
“They can fiddle with the data. That is what NASA does.”
“You cannot believe the people — the alarmists — who say CO2 is a terrible thing. Its not true, its absolutely not true,” Giaever continued while showing a slide asking: ‘Do you believe CO2 is a major climate gas?’
“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.
“How can you possibly measure the average temperature for the whole earth and come up with a fraction of a degree. I think the average temperature of earth is equal to the emperor’s new clothes. How can you think it can measure this to a fraction of a degree? It’s ridiculous,” he added.
Silencing Debate
Giaever accused Nature Magazine of “wanting to cash in on the [climate] fad.”
“My friends said I should not make fun of Nature because then they won’t publish my papers,” he explained.
“No one mentions how important CO2 is for plant growth. It’s a wonderful thing. Plants are really starving. They don’t talk about how good it is for agriculture that CO2 is increasing,” he added.
Extreme Weather claims
“The other thing that amazes me is that when you talk about climate change it is always going to be the worst. It’s got to be better someplace for heaven’s sake. It can’t always be to the worse,” he said.
“Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said.
“For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm — but for the previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level,” Giaever said.
“If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued.
“You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added.
“Same thing is for tornadoes. We are in a low period on in U.S.” (See: Extreme weather failing to follow ‘global warming’ predictions: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Droughts, Floods, Wildfires, all see no trend or declining trends)
Media Hype
“What people say is not true. I spoke to a journalist with [German newspaper Die Welt yesterday…and I asked how many articles he published that says global warming is a good thing. He said I probably don’t publish them at all. Its always a negative. Always,” Giever said.
Energy Poverty
“They say refugees are trying to cross the Mediterranean. These people are not fleeing global warming, they are fleeing poverty,” he noted.
“If you want to help Africa, help them out of poverty, do not try to build solar cells and windmills,” he added.
“Are you wasting money on solar cells and windmills rather than helping people? These people have been misled. It costs money in the end to that. Windmills cost money.”
“Cheap energy is what made us so rich and now suddenly people don’t want it anymore.”
“People say oil companies are the big bad people. I don’t understand why they are worse than the windmill companies. General Electric makes windmills. They don’t tell you that they are not economical because they make money on it. But nobody protests GE, but they protest Exxon who makes oil,” he noted.
#
Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears.
In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’
Other prominent scientists are speaking up skeptically about man-made global warming claims. See: Prominent Scientist Dissents: Renowned glaciologist declares global warming is ‘going to be a big plus’ – Fears ‘Frightening’ Cooling – Warns scientists are ‘prostituting their science’
Giaever has become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears. He was featured prominently in the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of (then) Over 700 Dissenting International Scientists from Man-made global warming. Giaever, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and won the 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics. (Watch news coverage here.)
Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming. See: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming: ‘We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated’
Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot’s more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared. “I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.
Giaever also told the New York Times in 2010 that global warming “can’t be discussed — just like religion…there is NO unusual rise in the ocean level, so what where and what is the big problem?”
Related Links:
Exclusive: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming – Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’

2012: Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Ivar Giaever: ‘Is climate change pseudoscience?…the answer is: absolutely’ — Derides global warming as a ‘religion’ – ‘He derided the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri a peace prize, and called agreement with the evidence of climate change a ‘religion’… the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case: “What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment