Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’
‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’
‘Global warming really has become a new religion.’
“I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November…I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position.’
‘We have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.’
Climate Depot Exclusive
Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.
“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.
Image result for ivar giaever
Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize. Giaever is also featured in the new documentary “Climate Hustle”, set for release in Fall 2015.
Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”
But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”
“That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.
“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)
“How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.
“Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [Note: Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change. See: Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming]

We are primarily funded by readers. Please subscribe and donate to support us!

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.

Global Warming ‘a new religion’
Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.
“Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”



58 thoughts on “Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’”

  1. Dr. Lewis is very much correct — but I would point out that this letter was written five years ago and I doubt if any warmists were persuaded by it to change their mind. Here is the problem: people who believe in CO2 caused global warming, aka climate change, have not reached their belief through reason or science. They simply have heard some people who claim to be good scientists support it, so they believe it too. Anyone who actually does the hard work of examining “climate science” knows that it is just climate voodoo. Don’t be a chump!

      • That’s right! Plant food. CO2 in oxygen out.
        Apparently the recipients of the common core education are treated like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them plenty of manure.

    • as Jimmy said I am dazzled that a single mom can get paid $28273 in four weeks on the internet ……..Easy online work for all. Make $5000 to $9000 per week online.4-5hour daily work………read the full info here
      ??? http://GoogleTopCareersGetDailyTimesFinancialJobs/get/morethan$97/h…????????????????????????????????????????????????

  2. Dane Wigingtion on Coast to Coast Radio to discuss the ‘elephant in the room’, namely the ‘geo engineering of our earth…no Physicist can discuss this without retribution from the MIC. Wednesday evening, Sept. 30.
    10:00 P.M. Pacific time!

  3. Burn the Witch ! Burn the Witch ! Burn the Witch ! Opps sorry.. Forgot the Global Warming.. Drown the Witch ! Drown the Witch ! Drown the Witch !
    Saint Al of the Gore
    High Priest of the Global Warming Church..

  4. Scientists who say there is no man-made global warming may indeed be right, but they have some very strange bedfellows–the giant oil and gas companies, all of whom for decades have beeen claiming that fossil fuel burning is not warming, or even seriously polluting, the earth’s atmosphere. As Lewis contends, money is surely corrupting scientists, but who has more money to throw around than Exxon, BP, and their ilk?

    • Who has more money? Easy question! The various governments of the world have much, much, MUCH more money — and for years they have been giving it out to “scientists” who are willing to claim that the world is burning up. Just like the tobacco scientists paid by cigarette companies to say cigarettes were safe, the climate “scientists” are paid to produce reports claiming that the government needs to regulate and tax energy.
      By all means, follow the money, and you will be convinced that governments paid hundreds of times more propaganda money than the corporations did.
      (This is not to be construed as meaning that corporations are angels; they often are not. (Monsanto, anyone?) Still, in the case of GW, the biggest player by far is that of governments anxious to control and tax energy usage.)

      • Goverments are run by politicians. Politicians are bribed by corporations, esp. banking, the world over. Pollution, to me, from gas and diesel-powered vehicles, is a worse problem than temperature warming, but no one talks about it. Radiation from Fukushima is still pouring out, but is not publicly discussed. Politicians do what corporations pay them to do, or else they wind up like JFK.

  5. so we are talking of the harold warren lewis who died may 26, 2011. who on october 8, 2010 resigned with a the age of 89. then and only then did he realize being of sound mind that what he wrote previous studies on was a lie?
    on october 12, 2010 the American Physical society which harold belonged to until 2010 at the age of 89 with full faculties intact retracted what he said for about 67 years. indeed.
    oh just one moment this prestigious organization represents over 51.000 members,including physicists in academia, national laboratories and the industry in the United States and throughout the world.
    The APS on october 12, 2010 published a letter in part that said,
    On the matter of Global climate change. APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
    – Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity.
    -Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming.
    -The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.

  6. READ their so calle ccounter agruments, aka strawmen, ad homeniems, flatout lies and f…. know what else.
    Payed by f….ing whom.
    Like billions thrown in any direction by simply saying something about CAGW and the money flowed in.
    Oil corps are not ONLY oil corps, they are usaly an conglomerate of corps and weirdly anouf, moust of them is in this one to, as electrical power suplying and so on, shut up f…. with this paying and or finacings.
    I havent seen a f….. nicle, I did this because of what I discovered after intialy belivng somehting happend, since it was based upon personal expiriences, but when I investigated the claims, and cheeked for my selfs, I realised something was gone highwire.
    The so called scince dont match the f…. facts.
    And as an educated process techincian, I cheeke the history as far its possible to any process, and our earth and our suroundings are one hell of an complex system.
    ANd to then jerk out ONE tiny itsy bittsy bitt, out of this equation, and say that THIS is a problem, and is the cause of the majore changes in this complex system, is lame to an expent its physicaly painfull to read their so called science, witch I denfie as an massive hoax.
    CO2 havent and will never have anything to do with warming, and its not even an atmospheric gass, its an erathbound gass and f…. foood morons.
    It always fluctuate with temp, have done it since the birt of time.
    And when Cows fartings gott the blame I knew this so calle science was one epic joke.
    God how f…. stupid are YOU whom stil byes this crapp.
    Am amazed.

    • As a technician please learn to spell or get a speller addon! Also providing links would help in your argument. This doesn’t make us skeptics look good.

  7. Here’s how I see this issue: whether you believe in climate change or don’t believe in climate change – isn’t it a great idea to simply stop polluting our air and start finding ways to power our electric lifestyles with things that do not pollute the air? Warming aside, the crap we spew into the air DOES harm us and is worse than even first-hand smoking.
    So why can’t climate change deniers and climate change believers just come to this compromise and say “ya’ know what? Pollution is bad and we should focus on reducing the pollutants that we pump into the air.”
    How is that so hard? And even when I pose this question to both sides, the ONLY side that I see coming to complain about my suggestion are those that deny the existence of human-accelerated climate change. In fact, this very compromise is met with name-calling, threats, and numerous other complaints, but never do they explain WHY they don’t want to lower pollutants – they simply go back to the whole “oh climate change is fake.”
    Yeah, well, let’s stop arguing about whether it’s fake or not and move on to renewable sources of energy as well as move on to production that doesn’t spew tons of crap into our atmosphere. After all, we have to breathe this crap.

    • I remember the hazes over our large cities in the 70s and believe me when I say that America has came a very long way at removing pollution from our air. We’ve also cleaned up much of our waterways and learned how to prevent soil erosion. It’s not the idea that lowering pollution is always a good idea but the fact that matters is that those who are driving a certain “agenda” are lying through their teeth not only for money but to psyop society into conditions they want to see us in. You are being LIED to constantly because they know that repeating the lie, no matter how big, eventually makes people think it’s the truth because they’ve heard the lie so often. It’s called conditioning or brainwashing and if this idea doesn’t bother you then they’ve already got their hooks into you.

      • Oh, okay, so because we have made strides to improving our air quality in the past, we should just forget about continuing that trend? Certainly that’s not what you’re saying, I’m sure, but that’s really what it sounds like you’re suggesting. I’m paraphrasing here: “we’ve cleaned up a lot of things like waterways and soil erosion, as well as clean air, but that doesn’t matter because they’re lying about our climate changing.”
        And this is what I pointed out in my original post – no one seems to care about having the discussion about our need to move COMPLETELY away from oil, coal, natural gas, and other polluting energy sources. Why don’t they care about that discussion? Because they want to politicize something they feel is an “agenda.”
        What agenda IS that exactly? The government lies to us all the time – the right, the left, the middle . . . they’re all liars, crooks, and thieves. And who is standing right behind them, helping them lie? The Oil companies, the natural gas companies, the coal companies, and many other “mainstream” energy-producing companies.
        So if they’re all LYING to us, yet are being bankrolled by the very people that stand to lose money by moving to extremely clean and renewable energy, then what exactly is the reason behind the lie?
        Think about it – the people that stand to lose money by going to either biological fuels, water-based fuels, or any other of the MANY options we have, are the big polluting industries such as Oil, Coal, and to a lesser extent, natural gas (their environmental impact, however, comes with fracking to a large extent).
        You claim we’ve moved away from soil erosion and ‘clean waterways’, yet every year entire water sources are contaminated by fracking. . . earthquakes/tremors are caused by fracking, and many other problems are caused by obtaining these energy sources, then when they’re refined they pollute, and when they are used they pollute.
        So who is lying to you? What’s so bad about moving to completely pollutant-free energy? You have COMPLETELY dismissed what I’ve said because you’re mad that someone is lying to you. Get over it. Go cry to someone else, because the government has been lying to you about EVERYTHING. They lied about WMD’s, they lied about Gaddafi mass murdering his own people, they lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, they lied about Pearl Harbor, they lied about 9/11. . . they lie about EVERYTHING. So why let this ONE lie prevent you from talking about a solution to a problem – that problem being pollution.
        It literally makes no sense to me whatsoever. It’s like you can’t see the forest because of all those damned trees.
        Wake the fuck up. They want you to be in a state of chaos and confusion. They want you to FIGHT with your neighbor over a stupid-ass theory that may or may not be true. That’s what they want. The divisiveness that climate change has caused was the purpose – not the prevention of fighting pollution.
        It sounds like you fell right for the bait. Good job. Stop bickering over stupid shit, find a solution to a problem that might just kill two birds with one stone, and live happily ever after.

    • Don’t confuse global warming with pollution.
      The global warming scam is to collect carbon taxes from EVERYONE, except large corporations who pollute the worst, will be able to buy “indulgences.”
      You know the government lies. In the 1970s, they said “snow would be a thing of the past” and that the earth was cooling.
      They have an agenda.
      Obviously anyone concerned would be in favor or less pollution, and more recycling. But why would the government support fossil fuel over renewable sources? Because they want OUR MONEY!

    • What kind of pollutants are you referring to? Even renewables have associated pollutants tied to them, mostly through mining, refining and manufacturing. Renewables name is a deceptive misrepresentation that only applies to the fuel. Renewables can’t sustain themselves. Fossils are the least intensive in pollution. And beyond that, nuclear is the least polluting.

      • “Fossils are the least intensive in pollution”
        Really? Funny because we don’t really use renewable energy on any major scale. As for solar panels – sure, petroleum is used in the production of solar panels, but not NEARLY on the level that we use petroleum products now.
        “nuclear is the least polluting,” yet is also the most dangerous and deadly of all known energy sources. I’m sure if you asked people that were forced to flee Chernobyll if they thought nuclear was the least polluting they would tell you that you’re missing the point.
        “What kind of pollutants” – anything that isn’t scrubbed naturally from the environment, and in a sustainable way. Currently, carbon is NOT being scrubbed properly from our environment – at least not in any sustainable way.
        “Renewables can’t sustain themselves” – um. . . if a renewable energy source isn’t renewable (non-sustaining), then it isn’t renewable. wtf are you even talking about?

        • You really are clueless about both technologies.
          On renewables it takes much more resources to deliver those megawatts.

          Let’s Run the Numbers Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar
          Your trying to harvest an energy source the is 1% of fossils and 0.01% that of 4th gen nuclear.
          The new nuclear technology makes it much safer then the old technology. And the dangers have been greatly exaggerated, that’s because to many people don’t understand the nature of radiation and a lot of scare mongering going on as with climate change. Some of the scare mongering on nuclear is from fossil entities.
          Chernobyl was very mismanaged by the then soviet bureaucrats who did something that was unethical on operation safety, they tried to do an experiment which is a no-no for commercial nuclear plants. And even then the reported deaths and casualties where greatly exaggerated by the drive-by press that didn’t even get all the facts about the incident.
          Carbon dioxide is a natural component of the atmosphere and plants are very dependent on it. It has been much higher in the past and didn’t have the forcing effect the IPCC claims. It really has zilch effect on the climate and is a life giving gas. On modern coal power plants 98% of carbon particulates are scrubbed out to benign levels. The EPA has unjustifiable instituted, via the CPP, ridiculously lower levels of particulate emissions just to force coal plants out of existence to satisfy the radical enviros who think renewables are green.

          Committee Report on EPA-NRDC Collusion Raises Eyebrows on Capitol Hill

          10 Fatal Flaws in EPA’s Dubious Health Claims

          EPA Under Fire for Concealing Controversial Scientific Data, Silencing Skeptics

          G3. The Greenhouse Gas Effect Does Not Exist, Part 1

          Curious Anomalies in Climate Science
          Renewables sustainability:
          Well they require continuous backup and are funded by ridiculously high subsides and wouldn’t even at the meager levels today if they weren’t mandated by the Feds due to radical enviros. That’s WTF!

          Obama May Finally Succeed!

          The Fossil Fuel Subsidy Red Herring

          • Sorry, but it is you who is clueless. Why do I say that? Because you’re basing that entire argument on the notion that there are NO other renewable energy sources than Wind/Solar.
            I’m not going to have a link-contest with you, but I would urge you to look up biological fuels as one of the best replacement, renewable, and 0 emissions source of electricity to date.
            Not to mention there are numerous other ‘renewable’ sources of energies that have yet to grab any attention, and also the sources we have yet to discover.
            The whole point is to MOVE away from what we know is hurting us – whether you think the harm comes from climate change or not. . pollution hurts us.
            And if you want a Nuclear power plant in your backyard, then by all means, get one started. And forget all about Chernobyll and Japan. . . because those things are just so rare and did little damage right?
            Oh, except for the new birth defects affecting the Japanese population as well as the endless radiation slamming the West Coast of the US because of those power plants you love so much.
            So clueless? Yes, yes you are.

          • The fact that you can’t substantiate your claim with links shows that you are all bluster, no muster.
            Biofuels? Replacement? Your ignorance along with your stupidity is atrocious.
            It too complicated to eplain on a comment rebuttal so foregive me, I have to use links.
            But even this site is clueless about renewable, aka solar and wind.
            But even the Liberal NYT recognises the folly of Biofuels:
            Turning plant matter into liquid fuel or electricity is so inefficient that the approach is unlikely ever to supply a substantial fraction of global energy demand, the report found.
            But the whole problem of renewables is the crony money invested in politics:
            “The alarming aspect to this piece of the story is that as reported by, the Navy and Air Force “demonstrations were triggered by President Obama’s initiative to unearth greener solutions to rising fuel costs,” yet the U.S. Navy’s Great Green Fleet cost $26 per gallon of biofuels, while the Air Force spent $59 per gallon on alcohol-to-jet fuel.”
            “Risky, yet the Obama administration continues to gamble with tens of billions of taxpayer money in order save the planet. But for those of you that have been following “green corruption,” you know that biofuel is only a fraction of the funds being dumped into so-called clean energy, which, in reality is used as political payback. Worse still, is the obvious crony capitalism and corporate welfare –– those with access and influence –– fueling this massive, expensive and deceptive scandal.”
            Like uncovered honey draw flies, liberal governemnt grants can draw corrupted corporations, it then turns into a back-sctratching scheme.
            You see the problem is one of fuel density:
            If Your iPhone Were Powered By…
            Biofuels are down there with wood
            The problem is you don’t understand pollution and you understand less of nuclear.
            When I talk about nuclear, I’m talking about 4th gen which are completely differant reactros from the old BWR and LWR and don’t suffer from the same problems. You really need to get out more and do some research.

          • And see, again, you’re showing just how clueless you are, because, yet again, you are stuck in the ‘old’ mentality. I’ll leave you with one link and that will sufficiently reorganize your thoughts into ‘wtf’?
            I said this “but I would urge you to look up biological fuels as one of the best replacement, renewable, and 0 emissions source of electricity to date.”
            That’s precisely what I was referring to – no biofuel in the manner you speak of – turning plants into fuel in order to burn as electricity. Again, you’re following the wrong thought pattern. You’re still stuck in dated times. I do believe you need to expand your very limited knowledge of futuristic renewable resources, because you are still clueless.

          • Clean Technical is just another shill site for the so called clean energy hype. They deal in fantasy energy wannabe hype. The same thing this article protrays is what the solar proponants hyped about solar cells. They claimed that Moores Law applied to an energy power technology just because it involved silicon technology; Moores law applied to miniaturization of electronics which is a power consumer, 2 very differant realms of physics.
            This article begins with:
            “Harvesting electricity directly from the best solar power plants in the world (photosynthetic plants)? Sound too good to be true? Well it may be a possibility in the near future, thanks to new research from the University of Georgia.”
            It may be posible, it might be, it could be, big fat IF!
            On top of that, it appears they are lying about plants able to utilise 100% of the sunlight.
            “Researchers there have developed a way to “interrupt” photosynthesis and redirect the electrons before they are used to make sugars. If you’re wondering why this is a potentially importent discovery, it’s because photosynthetic plants function at nearly 100% quantum efficiency.”
            “For actual sunlight, where only 45% of the light is in the photosynthetically active wavelength range, the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy conversion is approximately 11%. In actuality, however, plants do not absorb all incoming sunlight (due to reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels) and do not convert all harvested energy into biomass, which results in an overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation.[1] If photosynthesis is inefficient, excess light energy must be dissipated to avoid damaging the photosynthetic apparatus. Energy can be dissipated as heat (non-photochemical quenching), or emitted as chlorophyll fluorescence.”
            “However, there are trade-offs in nature which mean that photosynthesis is not as efficient as it could be – for many important crops such as wheat, barley, potatoes and sugar beet, the theoretical maximum is only 5%, depending on how it is measured.”
            And PEM fuel cells, although very effecient at what they do, are still very expensive, as is producing the hydrogen that powers it (most of the hydrogen is derived from fossil fuels).
            This is why I don’t pay much attention to sites that have clean or green in front of thier URLs.
            The day a technology comes along that can pay for it’s investments and deliver a profit to boot, that’s the technology I will embrace. Unfortunately, the only 2 technologies currently capable of doing it on any realistic scale are fossils and 3rd gen nuclear. The knuckle dragging NRC still has not tailored it’s regulations to 4th gen nuclear or above.
            I don’t think the Obama administration is interested in promoting nuclear despite it’s Pro-PR claims. The Obama’s regime seems more interested in neutering the middle class into some government dependent upper poor class. And they are already more then halfway there with medicare and social security and bogus new EPA regs that makes energy more expensive. Just look at the latest sellout of the American worker with Obama making backroom trade deals with the Pacific Rim countries that favor certain corporations.
            I saw Obama for what he was back in 2008, but I do believe the GOP ‘good- ol- boy’ RINO network engineered it that way. Best government money can buy, especially if you have very deep pockets. But the one guy who could have prevented it got assasinated back in the 60’s as he was stepping on too many special interest toes. And Reagan was just too old to handle the progressives and neocons.
            I’m still waiting for the piss and hover car that was suppose to make gas stations and paved roads obsolete.

          • IWB is nothing more than a propagandist blog that spews lies and skewed data.
            Now what?
            Clean technical isn’t the only website that talks about it.
            But to show how ridiculously wrong you are, and just how skewed the information is that one might glean from IWB, I’ll throw out a few links.
   – again. . . the technology is already a viable option. It has already been used and it works all day and night.
   – you think gizmag is “just another shill site”?
            And you also say “clean energy hype.” I hope you realize that people have fought innovation throughout history, every step of the way. The automobile was thought of as ‘hype’, as was the gasoline used to power the modern vehicles.
            I think it’s sad that you are so divisive in your thoughts of man-made climate change that you would ‘buck’ against innovations in energy production, or that you’ll dismiss them all as ‘hype’. I suppose the fact that oil is non-renewable means nothing to you, because hey. . . you won’t be alive when everyone runs out, so why should you look towards the future?
            Ignorance such as yours stifles humanity. I actually feel sorry for you.

          • IBW is more factual then your sites or you.
            No I don’t believe in MMGW and I have the evidence to back it up. But then we could argue about that for days and months but here is the most credible site for referance.
            It’s 3 parts. CO2 is not a pollutant it’s plant food and not much else. CO2 driven Global Warming is 0.004% theory and 99.994% BS.
            I showed you several credible sites that showed the articles claims were bogus. They where not connected to IWB. What is lacking on the links you provided is specifications, how much energy can be derived in w/hr or kw/hr. Apparently the current system produces about 0.4w/m^2 but they don’t specify if that is per hour or what? The woman on the video said 50m^2 was enough to charge your iPhone. Wow man!
            They made similar claims about the Fuel Cell, solar and wind, and still are.
            My average Daily usage is around 20KWh. The average American uses 35kWh electricity / day and 35 kWh of natural gas / day
            So 1,500ft^2 or 38.7 x 38.7 roughly. 11.8 x11.8 = 139.4m^2
            That’s only 55.7wh / day.
            I was hoping to convert to solar thermal storage but the recession put the ca-bosh on that. most housing just isn’t built to effeceintly utilise solar and it can add considerable costs to housing. And with 4th gen nuclear it wouldn’t be an issue anyway.
            They claim they will achive 2,800kwh/yr for 100m^2 . So you would need an area of 107,640 Ft^2 That’s a 32.8ft sided house if built square. That’s what’s needed to support 2,800kwh useage per year, or 7.67kwh per day. A little short for a theoretical achivement. How much do you think the average family uses and more people are renting then buying these days. But I would have to have a maintenance walkway say 2ft which leaves 36.7 on the sides and then 6 more feet between plots which leaves 30.7 x 30.7ft = 940ft^2 or 87.7m^2 / 100 x 7.67kwh / day = 6.72kwh/day.
            Then you have to consider structual considerations and the expense too. Then would the power generated be constant, year round? What kind of fertilizers are required? Would it need a greenhouse shield in colder climates. It appears to be as expensive in infrastructure costs as other renewables.
            This is the plan to save the planet? Pathetic. The best it can do is offset electrical usage if used properly but it will never replace nuclear or fossil, not according to the physics. They keep on making the same claim for batteries too.
            Face it, this is just reved- up 3rd world energy sources. But if they could use as a power source for food hydronics it could help out with food production as the old land farming is ineffecient in the long run, unless they can convert human waste to a safe fertiliser. Mechanized farming depends a lot on fossil sources of nitrogen as well as gasoline and diesel and phosphorous mining which current mines are being depleted of.
            With adversaries like China and Russia and ISIS we will need a strong, sustainable energy source. Green fantasy dreams by enviro pobias won’t get it.. And it won’t stop climate change either.
            But here’s one promising technolgy that could replace the grid, solar cells, and windmills and coal plants, unless companies use coal to derive methane for it..
            The Bloom Box

          • First of all, the fact that they have created electricity that is always available and causes 0 pollution is astonishing, regardless of how much or little you feel that it is.
            Second, you are missing the entire point here – there ARE alternatives to producing electricity. The future of renewable energy isn’t one thing all on its own, but instead multiple things working in conjunction with each other. In fact, petroleum-based plants can STILL be used for fail-safes in the event something else doesn’t work, but the fact that we are able to cut down the use of all those things tremendously is the point.
            You claiming a blog is more factual than gizmag, clean technical, or even a corporate video showing the actual plants producing the electricity proves that you’re an idiot.
            While there is plenty of useful info on IWB, it is nowhere near reliable enough to be considered ‘factual’ as it’s all opinion-based conjecture (for the most part).
            Keep pushing back against innovation, Scott. . . the rest of us will simply leave you to your outdated pollutants. Just keep screaming that pumping all those extra ppm into the atmosphere of generally toxic and noxious substances is good for us. Maybe go stick your mouth over an exhaust pipe while screaming that.

          • No, you don’t get it. There are sustainable ways to generate electricity and the Plant-Microbial Fuel Cell is not very sustainable on the generation end. There are a whole slew of issues not covered by the promos. Just because the company or a research says it will be able to produce this much in the future doesn’t mean it will. And the established science says it can’t be done if you read the material on the links. And Gizmag is like a Popular Science mag on the intelligence level, geared to the novice reader.
            I didn’t get my info off IBW I just responded to your comment on the site, I only visit IBW occasionally, I have many onther alternative sites I go for news and Info.
            The fact that I referenced to the Bloom Box shows that I’m not against innovative technology. This is a technology that is quite achievable and 2x efficient over the more conventional Rankin generated electricity. I’m against only that which is scammed to deceive the consumer or taxpayer, and there is too much bogus innovation funded by the crony governments to push a faux agenda. And there is even bogus stuff pushed by people out side of government funding. Some of the promoters believe in it and others are just looking to scam the consumer.
            What really pisses me off about you is the continuation of the spin on what I actualy said, trying to make me out as some stick in the mud when I’m not. I look at things on a realisitc, sound basis, not on some idealistic way like you guys do.
            Here’s some alternative, innovative sustainable and clean energy that blows your plant derive electricity out the greenhouse doors:
            Integral Fast Reactor
            Integral Molten Salt Reactor
            Gen IV Types
            Saturday, April 22, 2006
            Introducing the Liquid-Fluoride Reactor
            TR10: Traveling-Wave Reactor
            Bloom Energy
            Abundant Pollution-Free Electrical Generation
            While you guys go mucking about in the mud I will set my sights on the Stars. You can’t get there with limited vision, otherwise you’ll end back into the slime and muck. The Plant-Microbial Fuel Cell doesn’t operate on enough fuel density to get past the 0.4wh / 50m^2 but it’s good for 3rd world cultures. Chow, Man.

    • “Here’s how I see this issue: whether you believe in climate change or don’t believe in climate change”
      Your first sentence destroys everything that comes after. Everybody believes in climate change. Everybody. The climate always has and always will change! The argument is over how big man’s impact is on that perpetual change. CO2 isn’t a pollutant. It’s required for plants, and we’d all die without it. Compared to most of the records, the Earth is in a veritable CO2 desert, with levels far below the normal. You lost the argument with your first line!

      • “You lost the argument with your first line!”
        Here’s the problem with that – your entire argument is based purely on semantics, which means it is entirely fallacious. In what I have written, given the article the comment is placed under, the usage of the word “climate change” is attributed to the accelerated change of climate due to man. Every other person that responded to this comment understood that. But you? You came in here playing with words and misinterpreting the entire context of my comment based upon the fact that I didn’t specifically mention man as the culprit of the accelerated climate change.
        “The argument is over how big man’s impact is on that perpetual change” – the fact that you feel it’s necessary to point this out in the comment section of an article that talks about this very thing is sad.
        “C02 isn’t a pollutant” – oh really? Let’s define pollutant, shall we?
        “a substance that pollutes something, especially water or the atmosphere.”
        Now let’s define “pollute”.
        “to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste”
        Now let’s define contaminate:
        “: to make (something) dangerous, dirty, or impure by adding something harmful or undesirable to it”
        Now, you claim that CO2 isn’t a pollutant because it’s required for plants and we’d all die without it, right? That’s your claim. First of all, humans produce CO2 naturally and plants produce O2 naturally, right? There is definitely a balance that is made between both entities in a symbiotic relationship, because if one gives too much or takes too much, it’s no longer a symbiotic relationship, but instead a parasitic one that will lead to the destruction of one or both entities.
        Now, let’s talk about why plants needing CO2 has nothing to do with whether CO2 is a pollutant or not.
        Is water a pollutant? H2O. . . would you consider that a pollutant? Well guess what – if you ingest too much of it, it becomes a toxin. Water is required by humans and plants and we’d die without it, but what happens to a plant when you over water it? What about a human that consumes too much water? They die. The water then becomes a pollutant.
        The same is true of CO2. It is necessary for life – absolutely. But if you pump too much of it into the atmosphere, it becomes toxic. Nature has a way of balancing itself to maintain homeostasis, but when something is being pumped into the air, which also is absorbed into our water sources (which lowers O2 levels and kills fish which has a whole host of other issues), it pushes the Earth’s ‘natural way’ into something that is off-balance – basically, it makes the Earth sick.
        What happens when our bodies get sick? Our bodies respond to the problem, and go WAAAY overboard to the opposite end of the spectrum in order to try and correct the imbalance – sometimes our bodies do that to such an extreme that it actually kills us and not the thing that made us sick in the first place.
        The Earth is no different. If you pump a bunch of stuff into the air that doesn’t belong, the Earth will respond in order to maintain homeostasis. How does it do that? Be pushing itself WAAAY overboard in order to correct the imbalance (accelerated climate change).
        So next time you want to feel as if you’ve “won” some silly argument, why don’t you try to understand the context of what is said instead of playing a silly game of semantics, because as you have just learned, that works both ways.

          • Because I completely demolished your argument, piece-by-piece, you now resort to personal attacks and categorization of my views?
            The only chord struck is the one that I’m laughing at with your response just now. It’s clear you have no way to refute what I’ve stated, therefore you simply respond in the most typical manner possible – “you lefty.”
            “Semantics is precisely the point.” – You realize playing semantics to create a straw man argument is doubly fallacious, right? Oh, wait. . . nevermind. To understand logic, one might actually have to be reasonable, which it is clear you are not.
            I’m still laughing at this response. I just love putting people in their place, and it’s abundantly clear, by the very short, ad hominem response, that you are very much in your place.

          • You make me chuckle BP.
            You exposed yourself in the first response as an alarmist.
            “Is water a pollutant?
            H2O. . . would you consider that a pollutant? Well guess what – if you ingest
            too much of it, it becomes a toxin. Water is required by humans and plants and
            we’d die without it, but what happens to a plant when you over water it? What
            about a human that consumes too much water? They die. The water then becomes a
            Your use of an extremist example means one of twothings. Either you are claiming that CO2 levels will rise to the point where humanity chokes to death, or you are intentionally
            throwing out a ridiculous “we are all going to die” argument, firing for effect. You’ve done a marvelous job revealing yourself. That’s the global warming catastrophism summed up in your one silly little paragraph.
            Put me in my place…please.
            And what you’ve demolished is any pretense of credibility that you may have had. Time for a new account, “BigPuns” been nuked.

  8. I have many articles that prove what Professor Hal Lewis come out with.
    And this study points to another significant happening that may explain the controversy of climate change causes:
    Why Is The Entire SOLAR SYSTEM Undergoing Massive Changes? “Something is Affecting the Entire Solar System”
    Be sure and watch the video near the end as it reveals a possible event unprecedented in human history that is cosmic caused.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.