"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...

If you hadn't so disrespectfully ( because he doesn't agree with your
faith) stopped watching an proper Nobel prize recipient get to 5:19 ...

Please don't be seduced by the idea that Nobel laureates are omniscient.
They're pretty clever people but often only in a fairly narrow speciality
(though I'd except my old boss Jim Black - Medicine 1988 - from that
statement) that doesn't automatically qualify them to be authorities on
subjects totally outside their field.

Giaever's was some work on a fairly significant but arcane aspect of
superconductivity some 50 years or more ago. I did watch the video to the
end and it's simply a pretty elderly gent (late 80's is he now?) who has put
together what can only be described as a ragbag of mostly unsupported
statements and opinions as to his personal view of GW/CC, the bulk of which
would not stand up to serious scrutiny in any more serious scientific forum,
for presentation to a patently uncritical audience.

For instance, the idea that a relatively rapid warming of 0.8C (threatening
to be 2C or higher) is so tiny as to be trivial really does not stack up to
anyone who's studied the subject in detail. And similarly the old red
herring that the molar fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is again so small
that it can't possibly have any warming effect is equally smelly. And
presenting the UAH data set without any trend line superimposed as evidence
that there has been zero warming since 1979 is not far short of outright
deceit. I could go on.