Princeton Professor Denies Global Warming Theory

The Daily Princetonian ^ | January 12, 2009 | Raymond Brusca

[StopGlobalWhining]

Dissent continues to mount as more scientists get the courage to speak out. As pointed out on Sen. Jim Inhofe's U.S. Senate Minority Report web site, over 650 scientists from around the globe dispute the findings of the U.N. IPCC claims about global warming.

That's more than 12 times the number who authored the 2007 report.

[wastedyears]

This guy will probably soon lose his spot at Princeton.

[screaminsunshine]

It is not misstaken as he suggests. It is a full blown hoax bigger than Maddoff. Any Republican who participates is a traitor.

[Republic of Texas]

Exactly. Make that “former Princeton professor”. The left don’t tolerate no dissent. (grammatical license designed to annoy the Ivy League crowd)

[LongTimeMILurker]

Five of the central dogmas:

1. Evolution alone explains all species.

2. Heterosexuals are equally at risk for AIDS.

3. Global Warming.

4. Saddam Hussein had no WMDs.

5. Saddam Hussein had no connection with Al Qaeda.

There are others, but you have to stop somewhere.

[qam1]

Princeton Professor Denies Global Warming Theory

Gee no bias in that headline

[lormand]

Al Gore was wrong about this one minor detail, but I’ll bet he is right about everything else.

[gridlock]

Eventually people are going to have to climb down from this position on Climate Change. What are they going to say? Will and Emily Littela-like “nevermind” cover it?

[The_Reader_David]

I think not. Physics Departments (and Math, CS, various Engineering Depts. as well) tend to be the last bastions of honest scholarship in academe, with really strong defenders of tenure. His colleagues will back him.

[Republic of Texas]

I’d like to believe that, but liberal dogma has taken over science, which is why we are even discussing this global warming bs in the first place. However, I’d like to be pleasantly surprised.

[The_Reader_David]

Yes and no, that stuff is largely housed in squishy departments with names of the form [blank] Science, or in ‘interdisciplinary’ programs. Departments that bear the name of one of the sciences tend to be old-school.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off

Climate Research News

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.

---

[hosepipe]

Happer is on the verge of not being stupid..

[Jaime2099]

"What used to be science has turned into a cult.”

I could have used that zinger in the post about evolution a few days ago. Science has been so completely hijacked by cult type thinking, who even knows what science is anymore.

[BenLurkin]

[CaribouCrossing]

More ammo to save for the Global Warming Kool-aid drinkers.

Thank you for providing it, StopGlobalWhining. (btw, I like your screenname)

[TCH]

"...who even knows what science is anymore." Here's yer sign:

[Peter W. Kessler]

Even if his name was Albert Einstein, he would be (at least) ridiculed.

Yeah, I think this guy is toast.

[Anti-Bubba182]

This is an old story. Scientists are as fallible and immoral as anyone else. The are as inclined as anyone to have political views and biases and use underhanded means to promote those views.

That said, once a theory is established there is hell to pay to undo it as the favored theory attains cult status as has the Global Warming theory. It is not just the belief system. It is the money and power that follows the theory. Get a good line of BS going like the Global Warming theory you can get rich and famous like Al Gore.

Sacred Cows make great Hamburger:

The Lies of Rachel Carson

[SteamShovel]

ACADEMIC QUESTION

Many times a problem can be solved by looking at it in a different way.....

Given the volume of the earth's atmosphere and the historical records of burning coal and oil since 1900.....

***What is the total amount of carbon burned each year since 1900 in tons?

Graph the tons of carbon burned by year on one Y axis and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by year on another Y axis.

***Do the two graphs mirror each other?

Add another graph of the "Global Average Temperature" and does it mirror either of the other two graphs?

***Given the area under the CO2 burned curve, is it even possible that the total CO2 burned from 1900 to 2000 could account for the rise in CO2 concentration that the AGW crowd says has happened?

I have wondered this for a while but have not been able to get the necessary carbon burn data.