1. Climate physics is very complex. The Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates simplify this science to draw false conclusions and impose their views and programs on everyone. Physics Professor Howard Hayden has done a superlative job explaining why Global Warming advocates are dead wrong.

    Thanks to Dr. Ed Berry for hosting his climate change and his outstanding contributions to climate science.

    John Shanahan
    President, Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy-USA
    (that's "Environmentalists" without the CO2 mania)
    President, Go Nuclear, Inc.
    Denver, Colorado

  2. Eskil J.,

    You got a great point. That letter is filled with fallacies and it's an excellent example of "science by rhetoric" rather than "science by learning and evidence."

    In fact it's such a good example, that I've done a detailed dissection and loaded the holes with lots of authoritative scientific sources for those learning opportunities that are so important.

    "Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims – examined" http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/03/

  3. @3 Dear Citizens Challenge, I read your rebuttal you posted on your blogspot. I have one question: Have you ever taken a physics course?

    The complete nonsense in your blogspot rebuttal shows you have no scientific understanding of physics or global warming or climate change or even logic.

    Add the fact that you believe http://wattsupwiththat.com/ is an "onslaught of nonsense and crazy-making" shows you are brainwashed environmentalist.

    Where did you go to school? What courses did you take?

  4. And pray tell, who might you be brainwashed by – if you believe WUWT is any sort of objective resource. One doesn't learn by focusing on contrarianism.

    At least I support my assertions with actual science sources.

    You have offered nothing serious to dispute my claims, insults alone don't cut it.

  5. @6 Dear Citizens Challenge, I don't mean to insult you. I read your blog and I am giving you a realistic appraisal. It is clear you could not pass physics 101. This is why I asked you the sources of your education, like:

    Where did you go to school? What courses did you take?

    But you did not answer these questions, possibly because the answers would show your lack of science education.

    You may think you based your assertions on actual science sources, but the fact is you did not because you do not understand the context of climate science.

    WUWT is an open discussion among some very good scientists in the climate field. If you write off WUWT as nonsense then this speaks to your ignorance of climate science. You would learn more if you challenged what you think is nonsense with a comment on WUWT. You might be enlightened by the response.

    Your claim "One doesn’t learn by focusing on contrarianism" suggests you do not understand the scientific method:

    Science is based upon 3 steps: (1) create a hypothesis, (2) use your hypothesis to make a prediction, (3) compare your prediction with new data.

    If your prediction does not match real data in every test, then your hypothesis is wrong.

    On this basis, the IPCC global warming hypothesis fails because its predictions do not agree with data. That is the essence of Hayden's article.

    Climate models incorporate the IPCC global warming hypotheses and their predictions are wrong. No only do the IPCC climate models very much disagree with real world data but they also disagree with each other.

    The failure of climate models to predict reality makes your blog entirely irrelevant to the climate debate.

  6. It is refreshing to read such a concise and well-written summary of the facts.

    I can only think of one thing missing – the egotism, grandstanding, and cheating in the alarmist community. It started from the very beginning with Hansen's disabling the air conditioning before his original presentation to congress. It continued with "An Inconvenient Truth" where Gore was a masterful politician while clearly avoiding the facts ("the science is complicated" so he doesn't explain it.) It reached it's culmination (hopefully there will not be more) with fraud and refusal to disclose information on the part of Mann, who is in court at this very time, as well as by several scientists on the IPCC.

    Scientists, politicians, and corporate media executives are hardly exempt from unethical behavior. Money, power, position and prestige are huge motivators. Scientists have to eat, like everyone else, and there is only one way to do that in a capitalist society.

    Thus far this plague of unethical behavior appears to be absent in the skeptic community.

    The part I like best: "… the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science…"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.