Sadly, the new 'normal' in science is negotiating a consensus, and then attacking anyone that disagrees. The 'speaking consensus to power' strategy is a disaster for complex, wicked problems. https://t.co/Xa38Mw3930 — Judith Curry (@curryja) January 9, 2023
Why “97% consensus on climate change” claims are wrong https://youtu.be/-ExrTgigXzE and seven others here https://www.ceres-science.com/post/the-weaponization-of-science-politics-vilification-and-the-climate-debate-dr-willie-soon Here are 8 short clips taken from the talk describing each of the main topics he covered. The clips are as follows: Is Dr. Willie Soon in the pay of the fossil fuel industry? (9:28 minutes) Did the Smithsonian Institution disown their employee, Dr. Willie Soon? (1:01 minutes) Why Greenpeace is looking for a piece of your green (6:10 minutes) Why “97% consensus on climate change” claims are wrong (3:29 minutes) Are the UN’s IPCC climate reports scientifically objective? (6:52 minutes) The “hockey stick” debate: Was there a Medieval Warm Period? (9:21 minutes) How much of a role does the Sun play in climate change? (3:33 minutes) Are “fact checks” checking facts or checking narratives? (2:47 minutes)
https://www.biznews.com/global-citizen/2022/10/05/climate-change-2 by Nadya Swart There are particular fields in which those that stray from the official narrative are instantly shunned as dissidents. Climate change is one of these. Dr Judith Curry, Professor Emeritus and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has become known as one of the outspoken scientists who doubt the “scientific consensus” on climate change. As a result, she was “academically, pretty much finished off” and “essentially unhirable”. However, this didn’t slow down the bold climatologist. BizNews spoke to Curry about her views on climate change and the impact that human beings have had on the planet. A delightfully fascinating discussion ensued in which Curry explained her objection to the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policy makers” and how far reality really is from the grim picture painted by environmental activists. Curry made sense of recent extreme weather events and indicated that “Earth has survived far bigger insults than what human beings are doing”. An eye-opening interview. – Nadya Swart Excerpts from the interview with Dr Judith Curry Dr Judith Curry on the “scientific consensus” on climate change First, I’m going to talk about the sociology of why certain people have been separated out as heretics or even called deniers. The basic facts of the situation are pretty clear. Global temperatures have been warming. Humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 has an infrared emission spectra which overall acts to warm the planet. But there’s a lot of disagreement about the most consequential issues. How much of the warming has been human caused? How important is human-caused warming relative to solar variability, ocean circulation patterns and so on? So, there are some very legitimate disagreements about this topic and myself and others that are in this category that you’re talking about; we don’t dispute the basics. What we do object to is the idea of a manufactured consensus for political purposes. This is not a natural scientific consensus that has emerged over a long time. It’s a manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policy makers, which has been too narrowly framed. There’s too much politics in it. And that’s what I object to and there’s a number of other scientists that object to this as well. And we’ve also been critical of the behaviour of some of the more politically active scientists who are exaggerating the truth in the interests of a good story or political objectives. On how far from reality the picture of doom and gloom painted by environmental activists really is It’s very far from gloom and doom. People are being sued left and right over bad weather. Governments, oil companies and everything because they’re not doing enough. People who think that they can control the climate… It’s just a pipe dream. Even if we went to net zero, we would barely notice. It would be hard to detect any change in the climate. The climate is going to do what the climate’s going to do. And there’s a lot of inertia in the system. If the carbon dioxide that we’ve put in is as important, as bad as some people seem to think, those effects are going to be with us for a very, very long time. And stopping now isn’t going to change that trajectory very much. So, we just need to look forward and try to understand what’s happened. But thinking that we’re going to control the climate by going to net zero very quickly is not good. But the gloom and doom, I mean… Pre-industrial is held up as some sort of golden age that we’re supposed to go back to. Well [in] pre-industrial [times] the weather was horrible. This was at the end of the little ice age. It was the coldest period of the millennium. There were horrible famines, extreme weather and extremely, terribly cold winters and springs and things like that. That was not good weather. The weather now is much better. Even [when you] look more recently, at least in the US, where I’ve looked most carefully, the weather was much worse in the 1930s by any measure. You know, forest fires, droughts, heatwaves, hurricanes, everything that you can imagine in the US was much worse in the 1930s. Does anybody remember that? Well, no. Most of those people are no longer living. But if you look at the data there, it says [so]. Most people just look at the data from 1950 or 1970. The 1970s and 1980s was a relatively benign period of weather. And so, if you just do the trend since 1970, “Oh, the weather is worse now”. Well, yes, but it’s not worse than the 1930s or 40s or even the 50s. And people are much more prosperous. Globally, poverty is way down. Life expectancy is up. We’re doing very well as we reduce poverty and human development advances. A lot of that has been fueled by petroleum and coal. Are there better fuels out there? Well, hopefully in the future there will be advanced nuclear and stuff like that, very promising advanced geothermal. But right now, this minute, having our entire energy infrastructure relying on wind turbines and solar energy is going to cause a lot of harm to a lot of people, not just to the overall economy. You can’t run an industrial economy on wind and solar, at least not in the way it’s currently envisioned. It requires a huge land footprint. People haven’t thought this out and there’s no emergency. Economically, we’re all expected to be four times better off worldwide by the end of the 21st century. And a little bit of that might be shaved off because of damages from global warming. But we’re all going to be better off moving forward through the 21st century unless we do really stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have something better to replace it with. That’s the biggest danger. The biggest climate risk right now is a so-called transition risk; the risk of rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels. I’m no fan of pollution and crazy price spikes and whatever. I’d love to see inexpensive, cleaner, reliable, secure energy, better than what we have now. But going to 100% renewables is not a better solution. Even if we’re going to transition to all wind and solar, we’re going to need a lot of fossil fuels to accomplish that, to do all the mining and establish the supply chains and all the transport and everything else. So, in the near term, even if the plan is to go to all renewable wind and solar, then we’re going to need a lot of fossil fuels to get us there. People just repeat these mantras without any thought. It’s not a good place. On whether the Earth warming is a bad thing No, it’s not. This whole issue of “dangerous” is the weakest part of the whole argument. What is dangerous? It’s a whole Goldilocks, I don’t know if you’re familiar with Goldilocks and the Three Bears, the fairy tale about “too hot, too warm, just right”. Everybody has a different idea of what’s good. In the US, people are migrating south; Florida, Texas and California. These are southern states. This is where people are migrating in the US. They’re going south, not north. They don’t like cold winters. And that’s the biggest, dominant thing. So, nobody is moving north. The only harm from warming is sea level rise. And that’s a slow creep, unless something catastrophic happens, say, to the West Antarctic ice sheet. And if something catastrophic happens there, that’s as likely to be associated with under ice volcanoes as it is to be with global warming. So, the only real danger is sea level rise. And people can manage sea level rise and move inland. Read Also: Globally manipulative techniques deployed during Covid-19 era pioneered during the AIDS pandemic Sex and porn addiction: a critical, candid conversation with expert Dr Paula Hall and Remojo’s Jack Jenkins PANDA undresses Covid-19’s ‘Slim’ Karim
https://www.ecowatch.com/al-gore-world-bank-climate-denier.html By: Cristen Hemingway Jaynes At a New York Times-organized climate change event that coincided with the United Nations General Assembly, former Vice President Al Gore said President Biden should work to remove World Bank President David Malpass, referring to him as a “climate denier,” reported The New York Times. Later, during a panel discussion, Malpass refused to respond directly to the question of whether he accepted the scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is “rapidly and dangerously warming the planet,” The Independent reported. After being asked multiple times, Malpass responded to the question by saying, “I don’t know. I’m not a scientist,” reported Bloomberg. According to a tweet by event host David Gelles of The New York Times, Gore told Tuesday’s audience, “We need to get a new head of the World Bank. This is ridiculous to have a climate denier as the head of the World Bank,” The Independent reported. Gore expressed that Malpass, who was nominated to be the head of the World Bank in 2019 by former president Donald J. Trump, hadn’t been able to increase access to financing for climate projects for developing countries, reported The New York Times. “Since almost 90 percent of the increased emissions going forward are coming from developing countries, we have to take the top layers of risk off the access to capital in these developing countries,” Gore said, as The New York Times reported. “That’s the job of the World Bank.” Malpass came to the defense of the World Bank, saying it had put $31.7 billion toward climate financing, half of it going to projects concerned with “resilience” and “adaptation” in the face of extreme weather and climate change. Malpass also cited the World Bank’s Climate Change Action Plan. The U.S. is the biggest World Bank shareholder, and a U.S. citizen has been president of the organization since it was founded. Biden wouldn’t be able to remove Malpass, whose term ends in 2024, but could put pressure on the World Bank leader to resign. Biden could also join forces with some of the bank’s other shareholders to persuade the board of directors to remove Malpass.
Scientific organizations have no business getting involved in politics. Science is about data, not subjective opinion. In that letter addressed to Congress, there is not one shred of evidence to support the statement that “Climate change is dangerous to humanity and all life.” https://t.co/FCIhyDwpwg — Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) August 22, 2022
Marc Morano @ClimateDepot | PART 1“…the United Nations is going to pay the #governments of the world… those governments will get the most #climate #funds, who are best able to keep their #citizens locked in #poverty.” Watch #WeWant2Live” forum:🔴https://t.co/Bpek6GNv5T pic.twitter.com/sMm10NYMza — Global Crisis (@_GlobalCrisis_) June 7, 2022
Worlds #1 Climate Contrarian – Marc Morano | PBD Podcast | Ep. 157 PBD Podcast Episode 157. In this Valuetainment episode, Patrick Bet-David is joined by Adam Sosnick and Marc Morano Check out Climate Depot: https://bit.ly/3yG1aIS Pre-order Marc’s upcoming book The Great Reset: https://amzn.to/3PoBhDn You can purchase Marc’s book ‘Green Fraud’ here: https://amzn.to/3Mo6KDK Check out Marc’s documentary, Climate Hustle 2: https://bit.ly/3Lk4oo3 Check out Marc Morano on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3yFFlJu Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N Breaking Down Why So Many ‘Experts’ Believe Climate Change Is An Existential Crisis 16,670 views May 17, 2022 Patrick Bet-David Podcast Episode 157. In this short clip, Marc Morano discusses why so many scientists and ‘experts’ all believe in climate change.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/29/big-tech-censors-are-pivoting-from-covid-to-climate-change/ By KIYAN KASSAM Amid news of Elon Musk’s desire to buy and restore free speech to Twitter, the social media company announced a new policy last Friday prohibiting all advertisements that they say “contradict scientific consensus on climate change.” The move comes just days after former President Barack Obama appeared at Stanford University to effectively call for more censorship on Big Tech platforms. “While content moderation can limit distribution of clearly dangerous content, it doesn’t go far enough,” he lamented. “People are dying because of misinformation.” Of course, Obama is advocating for an expansion of the restrictive and undemocratic tactics used by governments and their allies in Silicon Valley during the Covid-19 outbreak to promote regime-approved narratives and suppress dissent. It’s not the first time we’ve heard this message from leftist elites. “What we learned from this Covid crisis,” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau let slip last summer, “we will be applying to the climate crisis, to the housing crisis, to reconciliation, to making sure everyone has good jobs.” We’re now seeing this Orwellian vision take form. Google has already banned advertisements that “contradict well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change.” YouTube and Facebook now display Covid-style warning labels and “information panels” next to videos and posts that mention climate change or global warming. But that’s not all. Earlier this month, Pinterest — a social media service commonly used for sharing recipes, images of home decor, and fashion ideas — said it would begin aggressively censoring user content that strays from prevailing climate change orthodoxy. Labeling Dissent as ‘Misinformation’ The ban on so-called “climate misinformation” includes removing content that “denies the existence or impacts of climate change, the human influence on climate change, or that climate change is backed by scientific consensus.” In other words, you’re no longer allowed to express what you believe is true on Pinterest. Under the new policy, “False or misleading content about climate change solutions that contradict well-established scientific consensus” will be removed, as well as “Content that misrepresents scientific data, including by omission or cherry-picking, in order to erode trust in climate science and experts.” Notice a familiar theme? It turns out the “climate misinformation policy” isn’t really about the climate. Rather, it seems the bulk of Pinterest’s policy is aimed at ensuring that no one on its platform challenges the “consensus” or proclamations of unassailable “experts.” Put another way, free and independent thought is the real problem that must be stopped. No Debate Allowed In order to accomplish this — in order to censor ideas and alternative perspectives that the San Francisco-based company disapproves of — Pinterest says it has partnered with “experts” (there’s that word again) including the Climate Disinformation Coalition and Conscious Advertising Network to help “inform and develop our policy based on common misinformation themes they’re seeing across media platforms.” So might we expect viral, hyperbolic claims about the impact of climate change made by the likes of Green New Deal co-author Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., to be flagged and removed for promoting misinformation? Of course not. Instead, what we’ll likely see is the censoring of people such as best-selling author Bjorn Lomborg — who believes climate change is real but does not believe it represents an apocalyptic threat to humanity. For example, an op-ed by Lomborg in The Wall Street Journal last year noted that despite breathless hysteria from climate activists and the corporate media, worldwide deaths from extreme weather events have actually fallen dramatically over the past 100 years. “A century ago, almost half a million people died on average each year from storms, floods, droughts, wildfires and extreme temperatures. Over the next 10 decades, global annual deaths from these causes declined 96%, to 18,000. In 2020, they dropped to 14,000.” These numbers may well “erode trust in climate science and experts.” By Pinterest’s new standard, that’s enough to have them scrubbed from their website. Then there’s this recent exchange between Musk and TED’s Chris Anderson: “There’s a consensus of scientists, a large consensus of scientists, who believe if we haven’t completely eliminated greenhouse gasses or offset them completely by 2050, effectively, we’re inviting climate catastrophe,” Anderson noted. “I am not one of the doomsday people, which may surprise [you]. I actually think we’re on a good path,” Musk pushed back. “So long as we are not complacent, as long as we have a high sense of urgency about moving towards a sustainable energy economy, then I think things will be fine…The future’s going to be great. Don’t worry about it.” By his own admission, Tesla’s CEO — one of the most brilliant and capable minds on the planet — is openly bucking “well-established scientific consensus,” which we’re now told qualifies as “climate misinformation.” See how this works? Reasonable Disagreement Is a Threat Michael Khoo serves as “climate disinformation co-chair” at Friends of the Earth. He believes Pinterest has “demonstrated great leadership” and wants other tech platforms to follow suit. “Climate disinformation on digital platforms is a serious threat to the public support needed to solve the climate crisis,” according to Khoo. What’s revealing is the framing of Khoo’s above statement: In his judgment, the “serious threat” is not the supposed “climate crisis” but the prospect of insufficient “public support.” Indeed, what Khoo appears most worried about is that competing points of view may be more persuasive than his own — so they must be crushed. For the second time in as many years, we’re witnessing a partisan public relations campaign masquerading as objective science. Once again, it involves politicians, Big Tech, and the country’s expert class working in tandem to silence opposing voices by targeting free speech online. Kiyan Kassam is a conservative writer and journalist based in Vancouver. Follow him on Twitter at @kiyankassam.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/19/the-irrelevancy-of-lynas-99-9-percent-certainty-climate-change-consensus/ By Anthony Watts Today, a new “peer-reviewed” paper is being released from Cornell University titled Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature. The study is yet another attempt to convey the nebulous notion that widespread scientific consensus exists regarding the primary causal factor behind climate change. A previous study, spearheaded by climate blogger activist John Cook, concluded in 2013 there was “97 percent consensus.” Despite near universal acclaim and its citation by leading policymakers such as the United Kingdom’s energy minister, the study was inherently flawed. Dr. Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia explains, The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it. Even The Guardian – typically a stalwart supporter of climate activism – ran a headline stating: The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up After a thorough analysis, more than 100 published articles shredded the study’s faulty methodology and completely rejected its postulated consensus level of 97 percent. Yet, Cook’s baseless study was still used as the inspiration for today’s release from Cornell – which, unsurprisingly, is similarly flawed. Regarding the researchers’ methodological approach, the article’s press release states, “In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020.” There are many issues with this approach, the primary concern being selection bias. The authors arbitrarily decide to look at just an eight-year range of climate papers, neglecting to examine the large number of papers published before 2012. This approach, therefore, conveniently “forgets” to incorporate the significant sample of climate skeptical papers written in response to the then-nascent concept of global warming in the 1970s. They go on to say “case closed” even as the glaring bias of pre-selection ensures many skeptical papers from the 1970s, when global warming first appeared on the radar of science, to today, were excluded from the study. Primary paper author Mark Lynas, visiting fellow with Cornell’s Alliance for Science, concludes: We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change. To cast further shadow upon the study’s conclusions beyond the glaring selection bias problem, Lynas himself inspires reason for distrust. The lead author has a history of climate activism. Danish author Bjørn Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace, penned a book titled The Skeptical Environmentalist. In that book, Lomborg suggested pragmatic solutions to climate issues. At a book signing in 2001 in Oxford, England, Lynas was caught on video throwing a pie in the face of a Lomborg, who was simply attempting to establish good scientific procedure. Rather than attempting to rationally object like an academic is expected to do, Lynas resorted to personal assault. To further confound the aforementioned issues with the study and its authors, the entire focus of the study is based on the flawed premise that consensus matters, or should even be sought. Dr. Richard Tol effectively summarizes this problem in his rebuke of this study’s conclusions, claiming, Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Indeed, there are many such examples. Consensus does not require truth or accuracy, it merely establishes that a group of any number of individuals congregated and agreed to a certain perspective – which is often based on nothing but misinformed opinions. Author Alex Alexander explains this sociological phenomenon in his article, When Consensus is a Bad Way to Decide, Consensus is about persuasion and compromise, not right or wrong, not what works best. Consensus is about human interactions, which are mainly about emotions, jumping to conclusions, and negotiation, and may or may not include facts and analysis. Consensus is about compromise, and compromise means that someone, maybe everyone, has to set aside an idea that may have value in order to satisfy the group, or the leader of the group. Even world-renowned physicist Albert Einstein recognized the fallacy of consensus when it is applied to science. When the Nazi Party of Germany decided they didn’t like Einstein because he was Jewish, they set about to discredit him by publishing One Hundred Authors Against Einstein in 1931. In total, 121 authors were identified as opponents to Einstein’s special relativity theory. Einstein, one step ahead of them all is said to have riposted, It would not have required one hundred authors to prove me wrong; one would have been enough. This is the essence of science – it only takes one author employing sound scientific experimentation to provide effective evidence in support of a theory or hypothesis. Needless to say, this is not how Lynas and many of his peers have historically operated. So, when Lynas asserts that the case is closed, he has provided little to no valid evidence in support of his theory. More methodologically sound forays into predicting the effects of global warming have been attempted, but their results range everywhere from “little effect” to apocalyptic scenarios. It simply depends on the scientist, the specific question being asked, and the methodology employed to test that question. Science cannot necessarily provide us with a foolproof answer to the exact effects that global warming may have on our planet, but one thing is certain: science is not a popularity contest. The study released today only further cements that consensus is completely meaningless as a means of establishing proof. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10104511/Climate-change-99-9-studies-agree-global-warming-mainly-caused-humans.html Climate change really is our fault: More than 99.9% of studies agree that global warming is mainly caused by humans Researchers analysed findings of 88,125 studies published from 2012 to 2020 They found less than 0.1 per cent were sceptical of human-made climate change This is an increase on a study from 2013 that found three per cent were sceptical The team say it puts to bed any debate over human-caused climate change By RYAN MORRISON FOR MAILONLINE PUBLISHED: 04:00 EDT, 19 October 2021 | UPDATED: 04:14 EDT, 19 October 2021 Global warming is our fault, according to a new study that analysed tens of thousands of climate change papers, finding that over 99.9 per cent of them agree. In total 88,125 studies published from 2012 to 2020 were reviewed by experts from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, to see how many of them linked human activity to the changing climate and look for consensus on the subject. It builds on the work of a 2013 paper that analysed all climate science papers published between 1991 and 2012, finding a 97 per cent consensus. ‘We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99 per cent now, said author Mark Lynas, who said it is ‘case closed’ for discussion of human-caused climate change. # Listen: Morano on The Joe Piscopo Show on Biden’s EPA purging scientists who won’t rubber stamp administration’s policies – No scientific dissent allowed allowed Morano: “Well, watch out, this is the way you get things done you remove all dissent you remove anyone who opposes you you silence all the opposition completely silence it. And then suddenly you have a green light to do whatever you want, which in this case is going to be massive administrative unelected bureaucracies taking over.
The new journal Science of Climate Change by the Norwegian Climate Realists Full Journal here: SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE 1 Final 2021-09-22 August 2021 A Greeting to the New Journal Ivar Giæver, Nobel Prize Laureate, member of Klimarealistene’s Scientific Council Giaever: We are extremely fortunate today because of the tremendous progress in science in the last century or so. People like Einstein, Onsager or Feynman have taught us how to study both the whole universe or a single atom in great detail and appreciate what we learn. In my lifetime innumerable inventions have been made and if you get bitten by the scientific bacillus there is no turning back. John Horgan has even written a book called “The End of Science” that was severely criticized by many people, but I found it close to the truth because there cannot be an infinity of scientific laws. But even if science is close to the end, new inventions are not, and the number is virtually limitless. The power of the Catholic Church in the not too distant past is well known and it affected many great scientists. More recently the political thoughts tend to influence science, but not as successfully as the religion in the past. The Lysenko scandal in Stalin’s Russia is a well-known example from about 1930. Global warming may be a recent one because they claim that they are correct because 97% of scientists agree. But science cannot be verified by votes; either you are correct, or you are not. Science can only be verified by good experiments and if they do not agree, even the most beautiful theory must be disregarded. # Related: Dr. Ivar Giaever featured in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change: “The Earth has existed for maybe 4.5 billion years, and now the alarmists will have us believe that because of the small rise in temperature for roughly 150 years (which, by the way, I believe you cannot really measure) we are doomed unless we stop using fossil fuels. We are now forced to use corn-based ethanol in our gas, subsidized windmills, and solar cells for energy; meanwhile, maybe a billion people worldwide starve and have no access to electricity. You and I breathe out at least thirty tons of CO2 in a normal life span, but nevertheless the Environmental Protection Agency decided to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health.” — —IVAR GIAEVER, Nobel Laureate in physics 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.” Nobel Prize-winning scientist declares global warming ‘fake news’ Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: He doesn’t believe there’s much to global warming. “I agree with [President] Trump, absolutely,” he said. “It’s fake news. You read the paper every week or two, and there’s a story about the ocean rising, the temperature is rising, but it’s always 30 years from now and not now. There’s never anything now.” Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’ Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’ ‘Global warming really has become a new religion.’ “I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November…I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position.’ ‘We have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.’
Sign up to get updates.
