Joanne Nova on Global Warming Change

[junskey]

Read "A Scientific Guide to the Skeptics Handbook" by John Cook if you're interested in a counterargument to Nova

[wildcrazygoats]

Nice body. Shame about the brain

[brospec]

What a load of ill informed bullshit

A third rate journalist is trying to pass herself off as a scientist

[MrTrance5000]

@brospec No less informed than Al Gore. Wasn't his documentary found to be a complete fraud by a court?

[brospec]

@MrTrance5000 Why are you clowns so obsessed with Gore - he is not a scientist & his "Inconvenient Truth" was released decades after the science was well known. Look up "Jason Group" report from 1979 - they are a group of distinguished scientists charged by the US president to investigate a diverse range of science issues - or were they part of some global socialist conspiracy ???

[brospec]

@MrTrance5000 No. Perhaps you have been listening to Joanne Nova's bullshit. Why are you clowns so obsessed with Gore?

[andyz0007]

Youtube comments have nothing but brainless dialogue

[AtomSmash3r]

Get back to the kitchen where you belong Joanne!

[substanti8]

Her comments are an elaborate fallacy -- namely the conflation of a bad solution with whether the problem is real. She's either too stupid or too dishonest to avoid that blatant error.

The interview was appropriately filmed in the dark.

She's a fine one to accuse other people of inadequate logical reasoning. Hey Joanne, got a mirror??

[Weisslebenswelt]

Joanne Nova never claims to be a climatologist. She claims to be a science educator and journalist.

I should point out that "climatology" as a field is still in its infancy. It is an incomplete hodgepodge of many other scientific disciplines such as astrophysics, geology, and chemistry. Many of the unfairly uncounted "non-consensus" PhD scientists come from those fields.

When people attack the speaker instead of what is being spoken, that speaks volumes to the strength of their position.

[wildcrazygoats]

A hack journalist funded by the Heartland Institute

[brospec]

WOW - a bachelor degree in microbiology, a mediocre career as a journalist plus funding & information sheets from ExxonMobil supported 'thinktanks" and this Joanne Nova broad can pass herself off as a climatologist

[WizardPaul]

@brospec - She isn't passing her self off as a climatologist at all, she is raising some very good questions about why we shouldn't be clamouring to believe that the world is flat...oops, sorry I meant believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming.

But you keep up the Ad Hominem attacks, so prevalent in the alarmism camp as the only way to make themselves feel better.

[wildcrazygoats]

Yes - perhaps if Ms Nova had studied harder she may have had a useful career, not relying on Exxon support

She is so upset about trading carbon credits - get over it honey - the market trade electicity, water, money , interest rate etc futures - its called free enterprise

Or are you a damn communist?

[brospec]

@wildcrazygoats She is saying Johnson & Johnson & DuPont are derivative traders in carbon credits? Is she really that stupid?

[wildcrazygoats]

She is one of the Australian fronts for the Heartland Institute - just another paid rent-a-mouth from the well funded denier industry

[rustyohrocket]

She's a fake.

[jwhat01]

@rustyohrocket

Really? Please explain. She is very real. And very intelligent. And very correct.

[Weiun]

And then in a later paper (1906 if I remember correctly) reduced DOWN his own estimates to the point of NOT A LOT.

........

Both the papers were rightly forgotten until the recent GLOBAL SCAM,

based on a UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS.

..........

A "science" championed by no lesser a great world scientist,

Al Gore................a politician out to make as much as he can through CARBON CREDITS.

[TRUMPHENT]

Svante Arrhenius provided the proof needed in 1896.

[Vibr8tor]

It shows a complete & utter ignorance of the issue to think that a single and accepted scientific fact about CO2 as a GHG constitutes all the proof needed to support the AGW hypothesis. No serious scientist, not even the highly ploticised ones of the IPCC, tries to make that claim.

[TRUMPHENT]

Arrhenius has had his work proven countless times. He misses the mark by today's standards of accuracy and precision. In his time, he was incredibly precise. Before Arrhenius, there were Tyndall and 'Fourier. Later, came Callendar, Plass, Suess and Keeling. Don't ever forget Roger Revelle.

Revelle sent Keeling to Hawaii in 1957. Guess what scientists call that year, go ahead, guess.

[chicago618]

She's not only knows her stuff she's also a hottie.