Jump to content



Photo

Nobel Laureate Climate Skeptic


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 01 August 2023 - 04:21 PM

Another skeptical Nobel Laureate of Physics — “Climate science has metastasized”

By Jo Nova

It’s just another climate denier with a Nobel Prize in Physics…
John_Francis_Clauser_.jpg

John Clauser, Nobel Prize winner.

Dr John F Clauser of quantum entanglement fame, leaves no doubt about his thoughts:

“…climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”.

Despite that, the ABC and BBC types won’t pick up the phone to ask Dr John F Clauser why a man with his remarkable reputation would risk looking like an idiot, and speaking up as a climate skeptic. It’s not that they are afraid he might bore the audience or sound like a kook. They won’t ask him because they’re afraid he’ll have a good answer.

How much damage would it do to the cause if the audience finds out that one of the highest ranking scientists in the world disagrees with the mantra? It would break that sacred spell. Suddenly, the unwashed masses will realize “there is a debate”, and that all the times they were told “the debate was over”, they were being lied too.

The same team that tells us that we must “listen to the experts”, won’t listen to any experts they don’t like. They rave about “UN Experts” that hide the decline, but run a mile to avoid the giants of science. They’ll ask high school dropouts about climate change on prime time TV before they interview the Nobel Prize winners. It’s a lie by omission. It’s active deception. And the whole climate movement is built on it.

The thing about skeptical Nobel Prize winners is that they make the namecalling “climate denier” program look as stupid as it can get.

Nobel Laureate: “Climate science has metastasized”

Thade Andy, RIPT:

Dr. John F. Clauser, joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has criticized the climate emergency narrative calling it “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”

Along with two others, Dr Clauser, an experimental and theoretical physicist, was the 2022 recipient of the Nobel Prize for work done in the 1970s that showed “quantum entanglement” allowed particles such as photons, effectively, to interact at great distances, seemingly to require communication exceeding the speed of light. 

The CO2 Coalition issued a statement when  Clauser joined their board of directors in May.

His studies of the science of climate provide strong evidence that there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world,” said Dr. William Happer, chair of the board of the CO2 Coalition.

According to Dr. Clauser, …” In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

 CO2Coalition

Other Nobel Prize winning skeptics in Physics include Ivar Giaever  who won a Nobel for tunneling in superconductors in 1972, and Robert Laughlin who won the 1998 Physics Nobel Prize for his explanation of the fractional quantum Hall effect.

Climate skeptics not only outnumber believers but they outrank them too — not that point-scoring in the pagan consensus battle tells us what the truth is. The point of telling the world about prizewinning skeptics is to expose the mass media propaganda campaign and the hypocrisy of their sacred cows.

https://joannenova.c...s-metastasized/

 



#2 Rich C

Rich C

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 367 posts

Posted 02 August 2023 - 04:29 PM

He makes a statement without providing any reason, no data, nada.


Blogging at http://RichInvesting.wordpress.com

 

My swing trades typically last a couple of weeks to a couple of months. 


#3 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 02 August 2023 - 07:06 PM

He makes a statement without providing any reason, no data, nada.

 

Wrong.  He did not make a statement.  If you opened the link you would see this is just a snapshot by a blog not a scientific paper.  If you want data do your homework (the papers that you previously requested are a good start). 



#4 Rich C

Rich C

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 367 posts

Posted 02 August 2023 - 08:54 PM

I hit a link, and he has a non-supported statement.

 

Along with two others, Dr Clauser, an experimental and theoretical physicist, was the 2022 recipient of the Nobel Prize for work done in the 1970s that showed “quantum entanglement” allowed particles such as photons, effectively, to interact at great distances, seemingly to require communication exceeding the speed of light. 

 

He has criticized the awarding of the 2021 Nobel Prize for work in the development of computer models predicting global warming, according to a coalition of scientists and commentators who argue that an informed discussion about CO2 would recognise its importance in sustaining plant life. 

Rich says:  Nobody has said that CO2 does not sustain plant life.  Clauser ignores the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

In a statement issued by the CO2 coalition, Dr. Clauser said that “there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world.”

RIch says:  Stated totally without support.

 

He criticized the prevalent climate models as being unreliable and not accounting for the dramatic temperature-stabilizing feedback of clouds, which he says is more than fifty times as powerful as the radiative forcing effect of CO2.

Rich says: stated without support.  How widespread is the cloud cover?  How much does it move around?  What about different cloud types?  No quantitative data.  No analysis.  Nada

 

Dr. Clauser notes that bright white clouds are clearly the most conspicuous feature in satellite photos of the earth.

RIch says: Duh!

These clouds are mostly produced by the evaporation of seawater by sunlight.

Rich says: Duh, I knew that in high school. 

They cover variably one third to two thirds of the earth’s surface.

Rich says:  That is a great deal of variation, the advance of temperature the last 70 years is pretty steady, and tracks well with IPCC models.

 

Most of the energy incident on the earth is in the form of visible sunlight. Clouds reflect sunlight energy back into space before it can reach the earth’s surface to heat it. 

According to the Nobel Laureate, this creation of a reflective cloud cover provides a natural thermostat that regulates the earth’s temperature with a powerful negative feedback effect.

He asserts that this temperature regulating effect is more than fifty times as strong as the warming effect of CO2.

Rich says:  He ASSERTS without any proof demonstrated.  He makes no mention of CO2 and its role as a greenhouse gas.

Dr Clauser’s statement said that the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences repeatedly concede that the effects of clouds do indeed represent the greatest uncertainty in their climate predictions.” 

Rich says:  The Dr. makes no attempt to quantify with any certainty the effect of clouds on climate predictions either.

He further adds that “The IPCC’s detailed analysis of clouds (AR5) and their effect on climate totally misunderstands the effects of clouds, and totally ignores this dominating energy transport process.”

Rich says:  Clauser makes no attempt to clarify the effect of clouds, and he totally ignores what role CO2 plays in climate change, although we know CO2 is rising in the atmosphere from man's activity because we measure it in Hawaii, and models of the rise of CO2 track well with average global temperature by year.

According to Dr. Clauser, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.

Rich says: Stated without any support.  No data, no study.

 


Blogging at http://RichInvesting.wordpress.com

 

My swing trades typically last a couple of weeks to a couple of months. 


#5 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 03 August 2023 - 08:54 AM

 

I hit a link, and he has a non-supported statement.

 

Along with two others, Dr Clauser, an experimental and theoretical physicist, was the 2022 recipient of the Nobel Prize for work done in the 1970s that showed “quantum entanglement” allowed particles such as photons, effectively, to interact at great distances, seemingly to require communication exceeding the speed of light. 

 

He has criticized the awarding of the 2021 Nobel Prize for work in the development of computer models predicting global warming, according to a coalition of scientists and commentators who argue that an informed discussion about CO2 would recognise its importance in sustaining plant life. 

Rich says:  Nobody has said that CO2 does not sustain plant life.  Clauser ignores the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

In a statement issued by the CO2 coalition, Dr. Clauser said that “there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world.”

RIch says:  Stated totally without support.

 

He criticized the prevalent climate models as being unreliable and not accounting for the dramatic temperature-stabilizing feedback of clouds, which he says is more than fifty times as powerful as the radiative forcing effect of CO2.

Rich says: stated without support.  How widespread is the cloud cover?  How much does it move around?  What about different cloud types?  No quantitative data.  No analysis.  Nada

 

Dr. Clauser notes that bright white clouds are clearly the most conspicuous feature in satellite photos of the earth.

RIch says: Duh!

These clouds are mostly produced by the evaporation of seawater by sunlight.

Rich says: Duh, I knew that in high school. 

They cover variably one third to two thirds of the earth’s surface.

Rich says:  That is a great deal of variation, the advance of temperature the last 70 years is pretty steady, and tracks well with IPCC models.

 

Most of the energy incident on the earth is in the form of visible sunlight. Clouds reflect sunlight energy back into space before it can reach the earth’s surface to heat it. 

According to the Nobel Laureate, this creation of a reflective cloud cover provides a natural thermostat that regulates the earth’s temperature with a powerful negative feedback effect.

He asserts that this temperature regulating effect is more than fifty times as strong as the warming effect of CO2.

Rich says:  He ASSERTS without any proof demonstrated.  He makes no mention of CO2 and its role as a greenhouse gas.

Dr Clauser’s statement said that the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences repeatedly concede that the effects of clouds do indeed represent the greatest uncertainty in their climate predictions.” 

Rich says:  The Dr. makes no attempt to quantify with any certainty the effect of clouds on climate predictions either.

He further adds that “The IPCC’s detailed analysis of clouds (AR5) and their effect on climate totally misunderstands the effects of clouds, and totally ignores this dominating energy transport process.”

Rich says:  Clauser makes no attempt to clarify the effect of clouds, and he totally ignores what role CO2 plays in climate change, although we know CO2 is rising in the atmosphere from man's activity because we measure it in Hawaii, and models of the rise of CO2 track well with average global temperature by year.

According to Dr. Clauser, “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.

Rich says: Stated without any support.  No data, no study.

 

 

 

 

Wrong on all counts.  Your "no support" statement is a ludicrous straw man.  If you want "support" go to the original papers and not brief summaries that are not intended to provide a convincing argument.  Failing to do so renders your "no support" a "non-supported" statement.  Instead of hitting a link that summarizes hit the links provided that show (i.e., supported in your terms) CO2 lags T which destroys the AGW hypothesis (note hypothesis) and then provide your rebuttal.  Stick to investment blogging as science is not your strength. Until you provide a valid rebuttal this thread and others are finished as dealing with your type of logic is a waste of time.  You can have the last word.  


Edited by colion, 03 August 2023 - 09:03 AM.


#6 hhh

hhh

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 03 August 2023 - 09:49 AM

There is a much bigger game being played:

 

https://boriquagato....-a-civilization



#7 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 03 August 2023 - 10:10 AM

There is a much bigger game being played:

 

https://boriquagato....-a-civilization

 

In forum world the name of the game is trolling.



#8 hhh

hhh

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 03 August 2023 - 10:27 AM

colion, I'm not sure I understand your reply. The purpose of my post was putting the "climate change" scam into the perspective of a much larger agenda.



#9 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,169 posts

Posted 03 August 2023 - 11:23 AM

colion, I'm not sure I understand your reply. The purpose of my post was putting the "climate change" scam into the perspective of a much larger agenda.

 

Right.  I think we are saying the same thing.  Arguably one dimension of this is the ideological position of "greenie" trolls ("climate change" scam) which in turn is a subset of cultural Marxism whose tentacles are intruding into many of our institutions, including government, academia and business.  That's their larger agenda.  The problem with their position is that it is not grounded in reality.  AOC's 12 years to extinction or Gore's off the wall predictions are good examples.



#10 hhh

hhh

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 03 August 2023 - 11:37 AM

Exactly, the propaganda has been very effective due to major advances in psychology combined with singular ownership of all mainstream media to the extent that it's almost impossible to break the spell, let alone move the Overton window in the direction of enlightenment regarding what the West is facing.