You have to realize that the greenies will take any scientist from any field to support their claim. Case in point, one of their darlings is Paul Ehrlich, a butterfly expert from Stanford University. He and Al gore have been promoting climate disorders since the 60s. Al though they were promoting an Ice Age back in the 60s and 70s along with H. H. Lamb and Jimmy Hansen.
Here is a quote from a physicist who is honest.
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Notice the greenies don't promote this physicist.
It has nothing to do with being a "leftist", it has to do with science.
The global mean temperature depends on energy balance--how much energy is coming in and how much is going out, that is absolutely the domain of physicists. It also depends on the phase change of water substance, which is thermodynamics, again the domain of physicists. Fluid mechanics, radiative balance, thermodynamics, spectral absorption and emission--all physics.
There are some things that touch on chemistry, such as absorption of ultraviolet light by ozone, but even that is really physics.
Note that there are sub-fields of climate that you wouldn't consult a physicist on, such as whether a certain location is a Mediterranean climate or a steppe climate, and what sort of vegetation that would support. That would be more in the bailiwick of a traditional climatologist, like Patrick Michaels.
Of course physicists that don't apply their knowledge of physics to the study of climate would be poor sources for information on climate, the experimental solid state physicist Ivar Giaever would be a good example of someone like that. However they would at least have the technical background to learn climate science, if they made the effort.
Try to become a climatologist without studying physics. I get the impression that you have never studied physics, climatology, meteorology, or much else pertinent to the discussion, with the possible exception of propaganda paid for by Big Energy.
Because physics addresses how things react.
And it doesn't make any difference whether one is a liberal or a conservative.
Physics is the same.
BTW, check out Zippi's answer.
Seems that many 'warmers' are also 'evolutionists'. Isn't that amazing.
They defend the name "science" like a radical Muslim does "Mohammad"... They cannot quite grasp their own concepts: if money is the root of all evils then so is "science" corrupted by the same money by-way-of funding. When federal grants are paid to DISPROVE man-made climate change, then I will start to believe it.
There are many physicist's who oppose climate change such as
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
It is a physics question, if this much sun shine goes through this much gas how much heat does it retain, and if the mixture of the gases is of different composition how much heat does it retain?
The question you linked has been removed.
But physics is what allows us to calculate the transfer of heat. Climatologists use physics calculations to write these climate models. All science, from biology to chemistry to meteorology ultimately depends on calculations of physical quantities. My high school had us take biology first, then chemistry, then physics last, but my chemistry teacher believed it should be the other way, because you need to know physics to do good chemistry and chemistry to do good biology. Physics is the most basic of the sciences; all others are subsets of it or use it.
They were given a task through the IPCC to prove "Anthropogenic CO2 Warming". They are "physicists" who have no other explanation for temperature increases except rising CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere. They will continue to adhere to the "greenhouse gas theory" by supporting each other's work.
It's simple narrow-mindedness from climate scientists.
"Birds of the same feather will continue to flock together." - (Most of these clowns are evolution theorists also, but they surely don't evolve within their own community. LOL!)
Why does your brand of political nut disbelieve in physics?
Can you give a scientific answer to that?
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20141118132434AAs2RVG
I thought that leftists were artsey types.
But what do physicists know? How many of them are talk show hosts?
climate science is about atmospheric physics
