Quotes on
real science,
from real
scientists:
“If a theory disagrees
with (an) experiment
(or data), it’s wrong …
That simple statement
is the key to science.
It doesn’t make any difference
how beautiful your guess is,
it doesn’t matter how smart
you are, or what your name is
… If [your hypothesis] disagrees
with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Richard Feynman.
Nobel Laureate
Physicist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“A model or a hypothesis
cannot ‘prove’ anything.
But data can invalidate
a hypothesis or model.
It takes only
one experiment
to prove me wrong.”
Albert Einstein
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Whenever
you hear the
consensus of
scientists agrees
on something or other,
reach for your wallet,
because you’re
being had.
Let’s be clear:
the work of science
has nothing whatever
to do with consensus.
Consensus is
the business
of politics.
In science,
consensus
is irrelevant.
What is relevant is
reproducible results.
The greatest scientists
in history are great
precisely because
they broke with
the consensus.
(Galileo, Newton, Einstein, etc).
There is no such thing
as consensus science.
If it’s consensus,
it isn’t science.
If it’s science,
it isn’t consensus.
Period.”
Patrick Moore, PhD,
ecologist, and co-founder
of Greenpeace
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The greenhouse effect
must play some role.
But those who are
absolutely certain
that the rise
in temperature
is due solely to
carbon dioxide
have no scientific
justification.
It's pure guesswork."
Henrik Svensmark,
Director of the Centre
for Sun-Climate Research,
Danish National Space Center,
quoted in the Copenhagen Post,
on October 4, 2006
-----------------------------------------------
"The bad news is that
the climate models
on which so much effort
is expended,
are unreliable,
because they still use
fudge-factors rather than
physics to represent
important things like
evaporation. clouds
and rainfall."
Freeman Dyson, PhD
Princeton physicist
-----------------------------------------------
“Future generations
will wonder in
bemused amazement
that the early twenty-first
century’s developed world
went into a hysterical panic
over a globally averaged
temperature increase
of a few tenths of a degree,
and, on the basis of
gross exaggerations
of highly uncertain
computer projections
combined into implausible
chains of inference,
proceeded to contemplate
a roll-back of the industrial age.”
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD
MIT Professor of Atmospheric Sciences,
member of the National Academy
of Sciences, and former lead author,
U.N. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC)
-----------------------------------------------
"Why are the opinions
of scientists sought
(about global warming)
regardless of their
field of expertise?
Biologists and physicians
are rarely asked to endorse
some theory in high energy
physics.
Apparently,
when it comes
to global warming,
any scientist's
opinion will do.
The answer
most certainly
lies in politics."
Richard Lindzen, PhD,
From: "Global Warming:
The Origin of Consensus",
Environmental Gore, 130
-----------------------------------------------
“The proof that CO2
does not drive climate
is shown by previous
glaciations.
The Ordovician-Silurian
(450 to 420 million years ago)
and Jurassic-Cretaceous
(151 to 132 million years ago)
glaciations occurred when
the atmospheric CO2 content
was more than 4,000
parts per million
by volume (ppmv)
and about 2,000
ppmv respectively.
The Carboniferous-Permian
glaciation (360 to 260 million
years ago) had a CO2 content
of about 400 ppmv,
at least 15 ppmv higher
than the present figure.
If the popular catastrophist
view is accepted, then there
should have been a
runaway greenhouse
(warming) when CO2
was more than 4,000 ppmv.
Instead there was glaciation.
Clearly a high atmospheric CO2
does not drive global warming
and there is no correlation
between global temperature
and atmospheric CO2.
This has never
been explained
by those
who argue that
human additions
of CO2
to the atmosphere
will produce
global warming.”
Professor Ian Plimer
(from page 165 of his book:
“Heaven and Earth”)
Plimer was a two-time winner
Plimer was a two-time winner
of Australia’s highest scientific
honor, the Eureka Prize,
and a professor in the
School of Earth and
Environmental Sciences
at the University of Adelaide.
-----------------------------------------------
“Environmentalism is
an urban religion
disconnected from nature,
or rural life, or the realities
of food and mineral
production.
This environmental religion
is terrified of doubt,
skepticism and uncertainty,
yet claims to be
underpinned by science.
… Like many fundamentalist
religions, it attracts believers
by announcing apocalyptic
calamities unless
we change our ways.
… Logic, questioning
or contrary data
are not permitted.”
Professor Ian Plimer
(from page 463 and 464
of his book: “Heaven and Earth”)
-----------------------------------------------
"Today we remain locked
in what is essentially still
the Pleistocene Ice Age,
with an average global
temperature of 14.5 C.
This compares
with a low
of about 12 C.
during the periods of
maximum glaciation
in this Ice Age,
to an average
of 22 C. during the
Greenhouse Ages,
which occurred over
longer time periods
prior to the most
recent ice Age.
During the
Greenhouse Ages,
there was no ice
on either pole,
and all the land
was tropical
and sub-tropical,
from pole to pole.
As recently as
5 million years ago
the Canadian Arctic Islands
were completely forested.
Today, we live in an
unusually cold period
in the history of life
on Earth and there is
no reason to believe
that a warmer climate
would be anything but
beneficial for humans
and the majority
of other species."
Patrick Moore, Ph.D.
Statement before the Senate
Statement before the Senate
Environment and Public Works
Committee, Subcommittee
on Oversight -- February 25, 2014
-----------------------------------------------
" ... the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change says
that humans are responsible
for most of the warming
since the mid-20th century,
that’s 1950, only 67 years ago.
So they (IPCC) say
for the first 4.6 billion years
of the earth history,
the climate was changing
due to natural factors,
like solar and Milankovitch
cycles and ocean currents,
there are many
natural factors
that affect the climate,
but since 1950,
67 years ago,
humans are now
the dominant force
in the climate change
on the earth ?
There is no proof,
if there was a proof,
that human CO2 emissions
were the cause of warming
in the climate,
they would write it down
on a piece of paper,
so we can read it and see it,
but they have no such proof.
All they have is the
hypothesis based on
the idea that CO2
is a greenhouse gas
like water vapor,
only water vapor
is probably a 100 times
more important than CO2.
So they just say this,
they say CO2
is a greenhouse gas,
therefore it’s the cause
of climate warming.
They have no proof
whatsoever to back it up. "
Patrick Moore, PhD,
From a conversation with
Grégoire Canlorbe, in Paris,
December 2017, for the
climate-realist conference day,
on behalf of the French
“Association des
climato-réalistes”.