amp244 said:

Dr. Nicola Scafetta, Ph.D. Physics:
"What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings."

"Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most."

^^He is not denying human impact on the climate via co2 emission. He is qualifying its impact.

---

Here he is showing his prediction in 2010:


And six years later, here are his numbers vs the IPCC numbers vs the actual numbers:

amp244 said:

Dr. Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysics
"The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C)."

---

While there does seem to be a possible correlation between sunspots and temperature, that theory is also starting to fall apart:

amp244 said:

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, Ph.D. Quaternary Geology
"The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."

---

Morner is clearly wrong about his sea level 'facts' because the sea is clearly rising:

(more here)

amp244 said:

Dr. Willie Soon, Ph.D. Rocket Science
"The main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2."

---

amp244 said:

Dr. Alan Carlin, Ph.D. Economics, MIT
Senior Operations Research Analyst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
"The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting."

"In brief, I argue that human activity may increase temperatures over what they would otherwise have been without human activity, but the effect is so minor that it is not worth serious consideration."

---

amp244 said:

my bad, 3 Nobel prize winning physicists question ACC. So just realize that I am not fucking crazy for having my opinion, it is actually shared by a lot more legitimate scientists than you'd be willing to admit.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

amp244 said:

my bad, 3 Nobel prize winning physicists question ACC. So just realize that I am not fucking crazy for having my opinion, it is actually shared by a lot more legitimate scientists than you'd be willing to admit.

---

I'll admit 3 Nobel prize winners question ACC.  Will you admit 36 accept it as fact?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

amp244 said:

my bad, 3 Nobel prize winning physicists question ACC. So just realize that I am not fucking crazy for having my opinion, it is actually shared by a lot more legitimate scientists than you'd be willing to admit.

---

I'll admit 3 Nobel prize winners question ACC.  Will you admit 36 accept it as fact?

---

bodhisatta said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

amp244 said:

my bad, 3 Nobel prize winning physicists question ACC. So just realize that I am not fucking crazy for having my opinion, it is actually shared by a lot more legitimate scientists than you'd be willing to admit.

---

I'll admit 3 Nobel prize winners question ACC.  Will you admit 36 accept it as fact?

---

Magnitude is a extremely weak argument
Back in nazi German most scientists would tell you Jewish people were inferior based on science. And few of them would disagree if any.

Populations of scientists go with status quo they're humans and want to fit in.

Funny to think we're at some pinnacle of understanding.

I don't pretend I know everything about climate change but I would rather listen to 6 compelling scientists than 36 ones operating on conjecture.
Not saying that's the case here, but pick who you listen to is more important than the popular opinion

---

Well if this is like the nazi/jew thing - the 6 scientists should currently be working on a nuclear bomb to erradicate the other 36

Bigbadwooof said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

amp244 said:

my bad, 3 Nobel prize winning physicists question ACC. So just realize that I am not fucking crazy for having my opinion, it is actually shared by a lot more legitimate scientists than you'd be willing to admit.

---

I'll admit 3 Nobel prize winners question ACC.  Will you admit 36 accept it as fact?

---

---

bodhisatta said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

I'll admit 3 Nobel prize winners question ACC.  Will you admit 36 accept it as fact?

---

Magnitude is a extremely weak argument

I would rather listen to 6 compelling scientists than 36 ones operating on conjecture.
Not saying that's the case here, but pick who you listen to is more important than the popular opinion

---

bodhisatta said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

amp244 said:

my bad, 3 Nobel prize winning physicists question ACC. So just realize that I am not fucking crazy for having my opinion, it is actually shared by a lot more legitimate scientists than you'd be willing to admit.

---

I'll admit 3 Nobel prize winners question ACC.  Will you admit 36 accept it as fact?

---

Magnitude is a extremely weak argument
Back in nazi German most scientists would tell you Jewish people were inferior based on science. And few of them would disagree if any.

---

amp244 said:

I'm well aware that the people I was citing were in the minority. Also, none of the scientists or nobel winners deny ACC. They question its impact. They aren't arguing about whether or not the earth is warming, they are arguing to what degree ACC is to blame.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

bodhisatta said:

Populations of scientists go with status quo they're humans and want to fit in.

---

It depends on the scientist. When science is practiced correctly, dissent is welcome, when it can be empirically supported. The greatest achievement for someone in a scientific field, would be to disprove conventional wisdom.

---

bodhisatta said:

I wasn't making a sided point I was just pointing out a flaw in logic.

Simply put those 36 could be right
But the belief that they're right just because it's 36v6 is stupidity

Our scientific community is still operating on the principles that shunned Galileo. Fringe usually brings advancement, but fringe is usually ridiculed first.

---

Quote:

Just trying to get people to broaden their horizons regardless of their side. Honestly if everyone worked together rather than argued about their beliefs...
Well

---

Quote:

You're not wrong though. Galileo was ostracized for his observations.

---

bodhisatta said:

speaking of the fringe of science, it's not always right. good example. Andrew Wakefield, his fraudulent paper got published in a peer reviewed journal too. in some ways he is the raindrop that started a storm, and that storm is horribly under-informed antivaxxers

---