by Dr. Ed Berry
- He shares the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
- This Nobel Peace Prize means he has scientific expertise in Catastrophic human-caused Climate Change (CAGW).
- His expertise extends to the physics of how human emissions of carbon dioxide cause climate change.
Here’s the truth:
- Professor Steve Running does not have a Nobel Peace Prize.
- A Nobel Peace Prize means nothing about expertise in science.
- At the IPCC, Running was part of Working Group Two, “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability“, that has 20 Chapters. Running worked on Chapter 14 which pertains to possible effects of CAGW in North America, assuming CAGW is true.
- Running’s expertise is in Forest Ecophysiology, Forest Management, and Botany.
- Running is not a physicist and he was not a part of IPCC Working Group One, “The Physical Science Basis” which pertains to the causes and validity of CAGW.
- Therefore, Professor Steve Running has no professional claim to expertise on the causes and validity of CAGW.
Since 2007, Steve Running, the University of Montana, and other sources have used Running’s false claim to a Nobel Peace Prize to promote the unproven claims of CAGW. Sometimes they omit the critical word “Peace” to further support the facade that Steve Running has expertise in the physical aspects of CAGW. [Read more…]
by Ivar Giaever, 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics [Dr. Giaver is a Democrat. – Ed]
Video Published on Jun 9, 2013
Presentation of Prof. Murry Salby in Hamburg, Germany, on 18 April 2013 with the title: Relationship between Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature. [Read more…]
by Rupert Darwall, City Journal
Climate-change science is “settled,” say proponents of anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming, or AGW: the earth is getting warmer, and human activities are the reason. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the United Nations in 1988, has issued five assessment reports since its founding. In its most recent, in 2013, the IPCC stated that it was now “95 to 100 percent certain” that human activities—especially fossil-fuel emissions—are the primary drivers of planetary warming. Frequent news reports—such as the story of the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, a process that some scientists say is irreversible—seemingly confirm these conclusions.
And yet, highly credentialed scientists, including Nobel Prize–winning physicist Ivar Giaever, reject what is often called the “climate consensus.” [Read more…]
by Dr. Ed Berry, also in Daily Inter Lake Op Ed of August 31, 2014
Baum hangs his June 29 rebuttal of my March 7 talk on a second hoax perpetuated to support the global warming hoax, namely, that 97 percent of scientists believe human CO2 causes significant global warming.
Consensus is central to politics but irrelevant to science where logic and data prevail. But on the subject of consensus, a simple internet search of “97 percent of scientists” finds a dozen articles that prove the oft-quoted 97-percent claim is an urban myth. [Read more…]
by Dr. Ed Berry
According to the Huffington Post, the July debate between Montana’s US House candidates showed a distinct separation of views on climate change, which lead to different views on energy policy.
Republican Ryan Zinke questions man’s role in climate change. He said,
“The evidence strongly suggests that humans have had an influence on higher CO2. However, the evidence is equally as strong that there are other factors, such as rising ocean temperatures that have a greater influence.”
So the Huffington Post asked University of Montana Professor Steve Running, a forest ecophysiologist, his opinion on Zinke’s positions. Running said,
That’s a future headline but it is doable. We all know the EPA is a problem. Now we have a workable solution.
The plan is to replace the US EPA with a Committee of the Whole 50 state environmental protection agencies. The feds will pay $1 million per year to each state to manage their own environment.
by Gordon Fulks, PhD
Wealthy corporate giants like Apple and Google now hawk not only their innovations in the virtual world, but an ever greater commitment to “green energy.’ Even Portland General Electric relentlessly hawks their green energy. What amazing virtue! What progress!
But is it? There are dark clouds on the horizon, as we turn away from objective science and engineering to a look-alike promoted by the politically connected but scientifically challenged.
One of the dark clouds is certainly climate hysteria, which once motivated societies to sacrifice virgins to appease the climate gods, and today seems intent on merely sacrificing industrialization. But that is not my concern here.
I wonder why we are abandoning “efficient energy” in favor of “virtual energy” and why we are abandoning “efficient fuels” in favor of “politically correct fuels.” I wonder why we are sacrificing our last open spaces to post-modern industrialization, why we are burning our food for fuel via ethanol, and why we are destroying the earth’s last remaining rainforests to grow “biodiesel.” [Read more…]