All of the points raised in his talk are one's I've raised here and all of them are put forward by others as well.
I could go through the list of them but I'm not inclined to. I didn't come here to argue about climate. I'm open minded and if someone were to show me how a heavy gas rises, while at the same time being absorbed by plants at ground level and by the ocean, unlike Helium, I'd be interested to hear from them. Also, I've never seen a CO2 cloud, I've never heard of other gases such as "clouds" made of H2O warming the atmosphere. I think the whole idea of a gas which reflects heat from a cold place to a warm place is nonsense, same as the idea that this gas only reflects light downwards and not outwards when first hit by incoming sunlight. I'm happy that Giaever is correct in saying that CO2 is a necessary element of life on earth, that there is no yardstick for determining what the "best" climate is, that he's correct in saying that there are so few weather stations in the southern parts of the world to say what the actual temperature is and whether it's rising, that it is impossible to compare temperatures accurately over the last century due to changes in methods and locations of weather measuring.
The most interesting point he makes about human warming of the planet is that the total amount of heat given off by humans in the atmosphere over three years is the equivalent of one match being lit in a very large room.
I also entirely agree and I think any rational, intelligent scientist has to agree that any so-called science which isn't falsifiable is not a true science, but merely a lot of observations struck together with a lot of semantic tricks to make people think that it is "science".
My point is that it is climate science which is now "pseudo science" and the practitioners of it are the "deniers" because they deny accepted "principles" of science such as the laws of thermodynamics, theories of reflection and all the rest of the long accepted theories which Gaiever refers to which flow from other areas of scientific enquiry.
I could go through the list of them but I'm not inclined to. I didn't come here to argue about climate. I'm open minded and if someone were to show me how a heavy gas rises, while at the same time being absorbed by plants at ground level and by the ocean, unlike Helium, I'd be interested to hear from them. Also, I've never seen a CO2 cloud, I've never heard of other gases such as "clouds" made of H2O warming the atmosphere. I think the whole idea of a gas which reflects heat from a cold place to a warm place is nonsense, same as the idea that this gas only reflects light downwards and not outwards when first hit by incoming sunlight. I'm happy that Giaever is correct in saying that CO2 is a necessary element of life on earth, that there is no yardstick for determining what the "best" climate is, that he's correct in saying that there are so few weather stations in the southern parts of the world to say what the actual temperature is and whether it's rising, that it is impossible to compare temperatures accurately over the last century due to changes in methods and locations of weather measuring.
The most interesting point he makes about human warming of the planet is that the total amount of heat given off by humans in the atmosphere over three years is the equivalent of one match being lit in a very large room.
I also entirely agree and I think any rational, intelligent scientist has to agree that any so-called science which isn't falsifiable is not a true science, but merely a lot of observations struck together with a lot of semantic tricks to make people think that it is "science".
My point is that it is climate science which is now "pseudo science" and the practitioners of it are the "deniers" because they deny accepted "principles" of science such as the laws of thermodynamics, theories of reflection and all the rest of the long accepted theories which Gaiever refers to which flow from other areas of scientific enquiry.
