Nobel prize winner Ivar Giaever: Climate Change = Pseudoscience

Catastrophic Photoshopped AGW image as verified. Falsified as Polar Bears are doing just fine.

The AGW hysterics pundits still make the claim that so many scientist promote and believe their fallacy that no one "notable or recognised" as a "real" scientist, ever states anything else than their inane AGW drivel.

That inane drivel has now been recognised and summarised by this Nobel prize winner. A winner of that prize when they use to actually award it on merit and not for politics as they did for the great imitator Obama and the world's greatest con man Al Gore. Both deserved a Nobel for inventions and snake oil salesman techniques, but that is about all.

We are all gonna die..

Jo Nova...

Nobel prize winner — Ivar Giaever — “climate change is pseudoscience”

Giaever stood his ground, dished it out for the Nobel committee, and pointed out the instruments are inaccurate, the results too small to mean anything, and called climate change “pseudoscience”. Merciless.

As he took the stage for his turn, Gieavar’s (sic) immediate remark was, “I am happy I’m allowed to speak for myself.” 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.” In contrast to Crutzen and Molina, Gieavar (sic) found 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.” He disagreed that carbon dioxide was involved and showed several charts that asserted, among other things, that climate had even cooled. “I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker picked and chose when he gave his talk,” he added. He finished with a pronouncement: “Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely.”

RIO+20, The enabler Branson and Working on a Tan.

Tax em all, Branson does not give a damn..

One would have thought that anyone who owns an aircraft business that spews billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, would have an issue supporting the Global Warming Myth. Apparently that sits rather well with Richard Branson, the owner of Virgin. How does that work ? I wonder how many coal miners do the same thing, not too many I presume. But the Virgin owner either has absolutely no morals or is a complete hypocrite. One or the other, probably both.

Rucker seized the opportunity to confront the globe-trotting, fossil-fuel-burning Branson about his unlikely position on global warming.
“Sir, do you support the European carbon tax on your own planes going from the United States to Europe?” Rucker asked. Clearly surprised, Branson responded that he would prefer that it be an “international tax, rather than just one area of the world.”
Such an idea is not unheard of. In fact, one of the items on the negotiating table here at Rio+20 is a tax — ranging from 0.2 to 0.7 percent — on international financial transactions, which would generate billions of dollars per year, and would be sent directly to the United Nations. It is unusual for the head of multinational corporations to support such radical policies.

It never ceases to amaze me how the filthy rich have no problem what so ever at screwing the general public with more taxes. That is apparently not their problem as their accountants have to deal with that minor issue as far as they are concerned. They have more important things to do like buying another Pacific Island to wallow on and brag about. Their blatant selfishly reaches new levels of high but never is there any consideration for the plight of those who are not as well off.

Rucker then asked whether it would be wise for Branson to tax his clients, considering that “support for global-warming science is eroding worldwide.” Over one thousand climate scientists dispute the hypothesis that global warming is man-made, Rucker noted, and over 31,000 natural scientists have signed a statement saying there is no convincing evidence that humans are causing catastrophic global warming.
Nonetheless, Branson refused to concede the point, insisted that “even if we are mistaken about that [global warming], I think it is good — we’re running out of oil, so we need to move into clean fuels as soon as possible.”
He’s equally wrong about the world running out of oil. However, Rucker will have to take that up with him next time they cross paths, as Branson was quickly ushered away by his entourage.

More on that hypocrite Branson here..