Albert Einstein would likely have been a climate skeptic

David Shapter writes on Facebook (Quoting Dr. Will Happer)

Albert Einstein would almost certainly have been a global warming skeptic if he were alive today. Many distinguished, contemporary scientists are skeptics, too. We are lucky that Einstein left a rich legacy of pithy quotes that reveal how he would probably relate to today’s cult of global warming alarmists.

Take the oft-repeated propaganda that 97 percent of scientists support global-warming alarmism. Quite aside from the falseness of the claim, Einstein would have remembered the famous attack on himself, “A Hundred Scientists Against Einstein,” published in Germany in 1931. His response was, “If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

His view of group-think was summarized in another comment:

“In order to be a member of a flock of sheep, one must, above all, be a sheep oneself!”

Or take the oft-repeated statement by climate alarmists, most of whom have little real knowledge about any science: “The science is settled!” Science, and especially a scientific topic as complicated as the Earth’s climate, is never settled. No credible astronomer, for example, would ever say we know everything about the universe.

As Einstein put it, “We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us.”

Einstein himself had shown that Isaac Newton’s wildly successful law of universal gravitation had major deficiencies.

For example, Newtonian gravitation had no room for the gravitational waves, whose existence, at exactly the level Einstein predicted, was first demonstrated by my Princeton friends, Joe Taylor and Russell A. Hulse, for which they received a richly deserved Nobel Prize in 1993.

Most importantly, Einstein would have paid close attention to how well the establishment theory of global warming agreed with experiment. He famously stated:

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.”

UPDATE: It turns out that Dave Shapter was quoting part of this article this article by Dr. Will Happer:

217 thoughts on “Albert Einstein would likely have been a climate skeptic

  1. When it comes to climate science, he elegance of science has been replaced by the art of agitprop.

  2. Albert Einstein is a dead white male, is he not?
    So his views can safely be ignored by post-modern science….

    • Dodgy,Great Point, And the establishment alarmists have employed Neil deGrasse Tyson to prove the strength of your argument.

    • Technically, no. Einstein was never considered “white”. He was Jewish and therefore not eligible for “whiteness”. As a Slavic myself, I am not considered “white” either.
      Also as a Slav I decry the cultural appropriation of the word “slave” by persons of non-Slavic ethnicity. My forebears were the original “slaves”, and so long ago that the word “slave” is named after them. As well, more modern slave owners such as Stalin and Hitler ensured that slavery of my people continued well after it had been outlawed in the New World.
      I find the cultural appropriation of my words offensive and demand that people who are not Slavic be jailed for using them.
      Oh what a wondrous world it it when we all descend the rabbit hole! I never imagined that being a slave victim could be so empowering!!!

      • Shoshin – Well done….I like your take of what has happened over the centuries….you made my morning.
        I’ll keep watching your comments for the pithiness.

      • Empowerment is the realization that what life deals you is less important than how you play it.

      • Oh, Brett Brad! Who in the world but you knows who by Erasto Mpemba (“CN Africa Correspondent”) is? Great comment!

      • Having slaves for ancestors is nothing to be ashamed of. Black Africans enjoyed a vast improvement in their standard of living as slaves, and they were crucial in getting this country started economically. They deserve their reward as American citizens. Today they are the envy of blacks elsewhere. Greek slaves worked alongside their masters to build the Parthenon and other monuments to Greek culture. I have occasion to visit the Caribbean where blacks frequently tell me they are descended from escaped slaves. Nothing shameful as far as they are concerned. I could well be the descendant of slaves.

      • Michael, my friend and fellow Mpemba-knower, have you kept up with his recent adventures? Do you know if anyone has managed yet to model 2 glasses of water skilfully enough to explain the eponymous Effect, or are they too busy pretending they can model the Earth’s fluid envelope?

      • Since slavery was practically universal for most of history, everyone on earth is descended from slaves. And from kings.

      • Eeeewwww! Not Kings! Say it ain’t so! If anyone thinks I have any nobility in my ancestry, I will lose my victim status!

    • I heard that much of his work was plagerised. He worked at the patent office. Where he got many of his theories. I haven’t properly researched it. Just what I’ve been told by more than one person who has

      • You believe that Einstein plagerized someone because he worked at the patent office? Please note that none of Einsteins thoughts involved “Left Nostril Inhalors for Varicose Ridden Chimpanzees” which is the typical level of discourse that attempts to pass for novelty in a patent office. Sometimes I’m amazed that Einstein’s IQ didn’t drop 60 points while being forced to deal with such derivative drivel. Anyone who thinks that original groundbreaking ideas burst forth at the patent office has never dealt with the patent office.
        I don’t doubt that Einstein’s work stood on the shoulders of giants, as did the work of all giants who passed before him. Einstein had two rare abilities; firstly he could generate original thoughts and secondly he could conceive of simple and direct ways to communicate these thoughts and test them.
        We should all be so lucky to be blessed by an original thought. What a better place the world would be!

      • General relativity is his in whole cloth!
        And is drastically more impressive than his miracle year.

  3. If Einstein was not a skeptic of science settled by group think, he would have never developed all the basic science that contradicted the prevailing consensus.

    • No, not really.
      Einstein started his research trying to “solve” the origin-question of some of Victorian physics most vexing phenomena. The photoelectric effect for one was quite a problem. Why exactly didn’t spectra of hot objects have far more blue in the spectra? Why did some bare metals (the alkali metals in particular, but also cadmium, hafnium, and a few others) emit electrons copiously when illuminated by light “bluer” than some particular spectral value?
      He also was cogent enough to make the unknowingly critical “possibility leap”. The Michelson Morley Experiment demonstrated that without a doubt, light travels at a constant measurable speed, regardless of the orientation of the experimentation apparatus with regards to the Heavens. Thus, if a physical æther were involved, it must have the effect of retarding light propagation relative to traveling thru it. Moreover, Michelson-Morley also showed that the speed of light measurements don’t even depend on the speed of the measuring equipment. Just the distance.
      His cogent possibility leap was to say, “the speed of light will be measured to be the same in all reference frames”. Or if you prefer, “the speed of light is frame invariant”. (Einstein actually preferred “the speed of time” in his private communications, but SoL stuck for the rest of us.)
      HOWEVER – once that leap was asserted, it needed to be followed logically. Simply, if the speed of light was measurably invariant in all frames, then it implied all sorts of seemingly bizarre things. Like the faster you go, the more the rate-of-time slows down for YOU as others might measure it. It also requires scalar distance dilation, or the shortening of length measures in the direction a moving experiment is traveling. Otherwise the c invariance couldn’t be mathematically supported.
      THOSE in turn then lead to all sorts of relationships between mass and c. it only takes about 3 university chalkboards to scribble the origin premises and come up with E = mc². Cute! The original premise tho remain(s) the same: that “c” speed is invariant in all reference frames.
      its not really like Einstein himself was the one-and-only “inventor” of the idea. Given the math of the era, the experiments showing vexing results, the need for physics to conjure forth math to model the findings, the Special Theory of Relativity was guaranteed to be “invented” by someone. The hip Einie just was doggedly first at it.
      There could be a lot more said. Mostly tho’ the Hip Einie’s actual greater contribution to physics was his General Theory of Relativity, which introduced the idea of 4 dimensional space-time, the curvature of space-time, the effect of gravity on space curvature, and the necessary equivalences of masses and energies in all space-time reference frames. For GR, not even “black holes” are terribly special. They’re pretty simple physics at least at the mesoscale.
      We like the guy tho.
      It was the hair.

      • “the speed of light will be measured to be the same in all reference frames”
        Um, no. Special relativity says it will be the same in all inertial reference frames. It will not be the same in a rotating frame, nor in a linearly accelerating frame.

      • The principle of relativity requires that all physical constants have the same value regardless of the inertial frame in which they are measured. The permeability and permittivity of free space (two fundamental physical constants) are measurable without regard to the speed of light. Yet the Maxwell equations can be manipulated to eliminate the time and space derivatives, and leave only the speed of light as the square root of the reciprocal of the product of the permeability and permittivity In other words, the speed of light is also a physical constant, and thus the same in all inertial frames of reference. For Einstein to be wrong, either: 1) The principle of relativity must be right, but the Maxwell equations wrong; 2) The principle of relativity must be wrong. I don’t know of an alternative to these. Does anyone else on this thread?

      • As I said, and as you have just said, … same value regardless of the inertial frame in which they are measured.
        People leave out the word “inertial.” That is not a trivial mistake. The speed of light varies in a non-inertial, accelerating frame. Indeed, in a rotating frame, the speed of light is not a limit for physical bodies.

      • Michael Kelly March 24, 2018 at 9:05 pm
        … I don’t know of an alternative to these.

        Human knowledge is an approximation of reality. Einstein did not invalidate Newtonian physics. I can still use E = MV^2 because, for the purposes for which I use it, it is a very close approximation to reality.
        Example: Suppose I’m explaining the braking distance of a car. I can use the above equation and ignore relativity because I won’t be able to measure the very very tiny error that ignoring relativity will produce.
        You can’t say that Newtonian physics is flat out wrong (and similarly relativity and quantum physics). You do, however, have to know the conditions under which it produces a sufficiently accurate approximation of reality.

      • >>
        March 25, 2018 at 12:59 am
        Einstein did not invalidate Newtonian physics.
        It depends on what you mean by invalidate. For instance, Einstein modified Newton’s second law of motion: from F = m*a to F = dp/dt; that is, force is equal to the rate of change of momentum with respect to time. If you use the definition of linear momentum: p = m*v, you get F = m*dv/dt + v*dm/dt. In classical physics, dm/dt = 0. Since dv/dt = a, we get our familiar Newtonian equation. However, if you plug in the Lorentz transformation for mass, you get an extremely ugly equation for relativistic force.

      • >>
        Michael Kelly
        March 24, 2018 at 9:05 pm
        For Einstein to be wrong, either: 1) The principle of relativity must be right, but the Maxwell equations wrong; 2) The principle of relativity must be wrong. I don’t know of an alternative to these. Does anyone else on this thread?
        Maxwell’s equations are only approximate. For a theory that appears to be more correct, physicists use QED, quantum electrodynamics. QED, of course, has its own problems–like renormalization.

      • commieBob March 25, 2018 at 12:59 am
        Yes, Newtonian mechanics are good enough for some government and even private work, so not totally invalidated for many applications.
        But Einstein did show Newton flat out wrong in other particulars. Gravity for instance works at light speed, not instantaneously. Also, space and time are not absolutes, as supposed by Sir Isaac, but are relative.

      • >>
        Gravity for instance works at light speed, not instantaneously.
        And there’s no way to resolve the difference between Newton and GR. Newton is not some approximation of GR–you can’t easily go from finite gravity speed up to infinite speed as an approximation.
        Newton doesn’t work if the speed-of-gravity is the same as the speed-of-light–Newton requires infinite speed to work.
        It’s interesting how they model galaxy motion. Do they used Newton’s infinite speed or GR’s finite speed? From what I can tell, they are using Newton’s infinite speed for those simulations. That brings up some interesting questions about the accuracy of those simulations. It also might bring into question the need for dark matter to solve the galaxy rotation problem.

      • Jim,
        There are indeed other explanations for some of the evidence supporting dark matter.
        Also for the apparent acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
        Science is never settled. Only pseudoscience like “consensus climate science” would ever make such a preposterous, anti-scientific claim.
        As noted elsewhere, the consensus is almost always wrong, but ideally gets less wrong over time.
        The consensus was that the sun and other celestial bodies go over the flat earth, then under it to “return to the place of their rising”, or maybe around it outside of the dome of heaven. Then the consensus was that the sun orbits a spherical earth. Then that the earth goes around the sun, but in a perfect circle. Then that the orbit is elliptical. Then that the center of mass (barycenter) earth-moon system orbits the changing barycenter of the solar system, which can lie within or outside of the sun. Then that the barycenter of the solar system also orbits the barycenter of the galaxy. And so on.

      • From the linked story:

        “What they don’t seem to grasp is that even if Einstein’s ideas later came true—they’re now consensus science!—it doesn’t mean Einstein was right when he peddled them,” explains Oreskes, a leading ex-scientist and climate-change fixture.

        That is the stupidest thing I’ve seen today for sure, maybe even so far this year. The accuracy of Einstein’s ideas doesn’t change with time. Our perception of that accuracy may change. There’s a huge difference.
        These postmodern idiots think there’s no such thing as objective reality. They think everything is a social construct. That’s flat out delusional … pathological. The word salad they dish out to justify their stance is pure unadulterated, 100% confabulation.

        Delusion. A delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or some other misleading effects of perception. link

        The objective truth of the universe exists. Period. As Alan Sokal points out:

        … anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) link

        • commieBob,
          This may be asking too much (unless you’ve got a PhD in Hist Phil Sci) but can you answer Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes’ counterobjection—you know, the bit you conveniently omitted when you quoted her words (from the NY Times) and put them in a completely different context (a WUWT thread):

          “But hang on,” I stammer in my own defense, “aren’t there groups on the internet who’d argue [that] non-Newtonian phenomena like relativity and the photoelectric effect were already real as far back as 1905, when Einstein first began promoting them?”
          Oreskes, however, gives such revisionism short shrift.
          “ROFL,” she counters. “As a trained historian of ideas, I can tell you there’s zero documentary evidence [for that]. Are we really supposed to believe there was a global plot by the entire scientific community to keep these aspects of the universe secret until 1905?
          “Then again, that’s the defining trait of quacks and pseudo-historians everywhere, isn’t it: conspirac[y theor]ies,” sighs the blockbusting author of Merchants of Doubt, rolling her eyes without looking elitist.

        • By the way, commieBob, far be it from me to accuse anyone of disingenuity, but given your attacks on Dr Oreskes I do have to wonder how bona fide your username is bound to appear to those of a more cynical nature than myself.
          Don’t get me wrong—I don’t doubt that your name is Bob. It’s the other part that skeptic-minded readers may find somewhat hard to reconcile with your apparent hostility to science by consensus. Just sayin’.
          For the sake of quelling readers’ doubts as to your good faith, will the real commieBob please stand up?

      • Um, commiebob, et al. Brad Keyes is the most brilliant satirist who has ever lived (IMHO). Not to mention the funniest writer of all time. So I won’t mention it. Forget I said it.
        When you read Brad Keyes, just strap in, have an omni-lingual dictionary and thesaurus handy, and get ready for the ride of your reading lifetime!

      • Brad Keyes March 24, 2018 at 8:12 pm
        [argument] … non-Newtonian phenomena like relativity and the photoelectric effect were already real as far back as 1905, when Einstein first began promoting them?
        [counterargument] … Are we really supposed to believe there was a global plot by the entire scientific community to keep these aspects of the universe secret until 1905?

        (OK, assuming that the quotes attributed to Oreskes are genuine …)
        The counterargument’s premise is that non-Newtonian phenomena did not exist until they were discovered by people. That is the equivalent of arguing that, until Copernicus found that the Sun is the center of the solar system, the Sun actually orbited the Earth.
        The obvious problem about insisting that facts are socially constructed is this: What happens when two groups (unknown to each other) have different opinions about the facts of the universe?

        • (OK, assuming that the quotes attributed to Oreskes are genuine …)

          That’s a forlorn assumption, since the quotes are in the NY Times, and so are probably the kinds of things Oreskes might say, at best.
          Still, in this case, as the CliScep editor remarked in the preface, the NYT has indeed done better than usual. Oreskes’ quotes do actually seem to be logical extensions of her groundbreaking epistemology, so if they’re Fake News, at least they’re convincingly fake.

          The counterargument’s premise is that non-Newtonian phenomena did not exist until they were discovered by people.

          Next you’re going to tell us Newton didn’t invent gravity, commieBob.

          The obvious problem about insisting that facts are socially constructed is this: What happens when two groups (unknown to each other) have different opinions about the facts of the universe?

          There are uncontacted groups in the Amazon who probably believe it’s raining at the same time as I believe it’s sunny. This happens every day, for all we know. And so what? Since the groups are unbeknownst to each other, it never becomes a problem.

  4. No way would Einstein fall for this garbage.
    Climate Sophistry In San Francisco; Half-Truths are Twice the Lie
    Thanks for Anthony Watts and Willie Soon over at WUWT, we now have the San Francisco Court Documents. My immediate thought was how short and concise the defense’s document was Click Here, compared to the prosecution’s Click Here and Click Here. People that truly understand issues can better simplify the topic, whereas those who don’t … Continue reading
    Freeman Dyson, the man the occupies Einstein’s posittion at Prinston doesn’t buy this garbage either.
    Freeman Dyson Validates CO2isLife
    Reading Freeman Dyson’s HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY I was pleasantly surprised at how many of the flaws in the AGW theory I’ve written about in this blog he also identifies. He also highlights how his critics claim that he has “no degree in meteorology and…therefore not qualified to speak,” to which he states “I have studied … Continue reading

    • Of course the problem is that, apart from a few of us physicists, hardly anybody has heard of Freeman Dyson, let alone know that he is probably the greatest physicist alive today.

      • Dyson was a guest speaker at my daughter’s graduation a few decades ago. He also received an honorary degree that day–probably one of many. However, his spheres as originally specified would not work. A sphere cannot orbit around another body. There’s no gravitational force inside a spherical mass–nothing for a star to latch onto. The two objects–star-sphere–would drift independently.

      • Everyone who owns a bagless vacuum cleaner or a bladeless fan knows the genius of Dyson, because it’s changed their lives for the better. Who knows what else Dyson could have gone on to achieve had his life not been cut short by a bomb with a dead-man switch in the Cyberdyne Industries Headquarters Incident of 1990?

      • “A sphere cannot orbit around another body. There’s no gravitational force inside a spherical mass–nothing for a star to latch onto.”
        Dyson sphere could work in principle. You are referring to Newton’s Shell theorem. But that is a hollow sphere. Dyson sphere is not hollow. It has a star inside it! There’s gravitational force inside and the star and sphere have the same center of mass so the sphere does’t even have to rotate to remain in place.

      • >>
        Dr. Strangelove
        March 25, 2018 at 5:20 am
        Dyson sphere could work in principle.
        It would be quite a feat of engineering. I’m not sure you could construct such an object with known materials. However, Dyson thought you could farm the inside surface area. There’s no gravity from the sphere anywhere inside. The only gravity would be the central star. Objects inside the sphere would be pulled toward the central star. You would need pressure domes and ways to anchor objects. It wouldn’t be impossible, but it’s not as simple as Dyson first visualized.

      • Jim
        Yes it’s a feat of engineering but the common silicon solar PV cells will do. Let’s design a Dyson sphere around our sun in the orbit of Mercury. So the radius of the sphere R = 58 million km.
        Mass of sun M = 2 e30 kg and G is gravitational constant
        Gravitational acceleration g = G M/r^2 = 0.04 m/s^2. This is just 0.4% of Earth’s surface gravity
        I will make the sphere only t = 0.5 cm thick. Let’s see if it can withstand the shear stress due to its own weight.
        Surface area of sphere A = 4 pi R^2 = 4.21 e22 m^2
        Volume of sphere V = A t = 2.11 e20 m^3
        Density of silicon d = 2327 kg/m^3
        Mass of sphere m = V d = 4.9 e23 kg
        Weight of sphere W = m g = 1.95 e22 N
        Shear stress on sphere = W/V = 93 Pa
        The shear strength of silicon is 240 MPa. It can easily carry its own weight.It’s rigid and will not deform.
        The real challenge is its enormous size. Let’s see what is the radius r if we compress it into a solid sphere.
        V = 4/3 pi r^3 = 2.11 e20
        Solving for r = 3691 km. That’s bigger than planet Mars!
        So we have to dismantle an entire planet to build a Dyson sphere. Only the Vogons will destroy an entire planet with talking hairless apes to build an intergalactic highway

      • >>
        So the radius of the sphere R = 58 million km.
        Your real problem is maintaining rigidity. I don’t think a 1 million km structure would be rigid enough to hold its shape, let alone one 116 million km across. Dyson was talking about a structure that was 2 AUs across and disassembling Jupiter and Saturn to boot. So tell me how to disassemble Jupiter, and maybe Dyson spheres will be easy by comparison.

    • Absolutely sir, and neither would Feynman nor Popper. Now a certain posthumous astronomer who also preached the rules of science remains a question as he was a ‘star baby’ of the original ecology movement. Would he be like Tyson and ignore the rules of critical thought he boasted?

      • The astronomical Dr. Sagan spread the false doctrine of Nuclear Winter, so definitely would have been on board for CACA.

      • You have to keep in mind the timing of all this, too. I was a believer in those things back then, but have always strived to keep an open mind. I just wonder if he was a Hollywood talking head more than a scientist once he was in the spotlight.

      • I wasn’t. In private conversation, Schneider admitted the problems with anti-scientific dogma of Nuclear Winter, such as soot issues.

      • “The astronomical Dr. Sagan spread the false doctrine of Nuclear Winter, so definitely would have been on board for CACA.”
        Perhaps. On the other hand, when his prediction (which was based on the Nuclear Winter theory) of the climatic damage that would be done when the Iraq oil wells were burned at the end of the Iraq War was proved wrong, he admitted to being wrong and gave the reason he was wrong. Based on that, I think he might well have ended up being a skeptic.

      • Ric,
        Maybe, but he was first and foremost an advocate, and quit being a scientist to promote his political agenda. Recall that he was in cahoots with Paul Ehrlich. The end of the USSR must have been painful for them.

      • Chimp:
        I don’t think he ever stopped being a scientist, though I agree that he often had trouble separating being a scientist from being a political activist.
        I will admit I may have a soft spot where Dr. Sagan is concerned both because of his l work in creating the outstanding COSMOS series and for his defense of scientific freedom in that series.

      • He got some things wrong in that series, but so too would anyone, most likely.
        After becoming a TV star, he became more activist and less scientist, using his notoriety to promote his anti-American agenda.

  5. Probably true, but OTOH he was a socialist whose last mistress was a Soviet spy. If you fall for communism, you might also be taken in by CACA.

    • Ooh, Ooh, Oohhhh …… Eeek! And what has that ad hom attack to do with his scientific approach and breadth of understanding compared to self promoting snake oil salesmen and of the grant chasing climate change priesthood?

    • Not ad hom. Just a fact.
      Einstein was naive and careless, indeed heartless in his personal relationships. He might well have bought into CACA, although since it allegedly is “science”, he might not have been so gullible as he was in political beliefs.

      • Chimp, most very smart folks are “relationship challenged”. That is a separate issue from their gullibility in matters within their realm of expertise. What he’d call out is the rampant and widespread abuse of the scientific method IMHO.

      • IMO, hard to say, since he favored one world government, a goal of CACA advocates.
        To his credit, he did see through the sc@m of peer review.

      • Do you mean to say he was gullible because he bought into some of the ideas inherent in socialism?
        Then he was as gullible as say Orwell who also was sympathetic to some of those ideas for a time.
        Both Orwell and Einstein however, came to understand the dangers of socialism’s inherent “messianic” and therefore authoritarian/totalitarian fundamentals.
        Orwell famously wrote his 1984 warning as he was terminally ill in 1948, and Einstein came up with his horseshoe depiction of political “isms”, in which socialism/communism at one end of the horseshoe is closer to fascism at the other end of the horseshoe, than to any other political philosophy.
        An observation which said in passing, is borne out in today’s China which is notionally communist but in reality has morphed into a system that ticks all the boxes defining fascism.
        So maybe not so naïve after all, our prescient friend Albert…

      • Einstein never had Orwell’s epiphany. He was never anti-Soviet, but instead venerated Lenin. He wrote, “I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of humanity.”
        His belief in socialism and one world government was IMO naive, at best.

      • Spot-on about the naivety of global socialists. I guess it would come down to how he would have processed the events which have transpired in his post-mortem years and how that would have shaped his perspective by now, to put him on the same playing field as us.

    • This is a constant problem with really smart people.
      They tend to assume that all problems can be solved by people with such intelligence.
      To them it just seems natural that society can be engineered for the betterment of people.
      You actually have to spend time studying how societies and economies self organize before you can start to understand how stupid the idea of a top down design for either actually is.

      • They seem to have a fantasy that the more intelligent and educated one is, the more benevolent he becomes toward his fellow man. History disagrees.

  6. Einstein published four papers in 1905. One was on Special Relativity. Another, related to Special Relativity, equated energy and mass, his famous E = m*c^2 formula. The third dealt with Brownian motion (they were still debating the existence of atoms in 1905). The fourth, the one he received the Nobel Prize for, was on the photoelectric effect. In that paper, he demonstrated that light behaves as if it were in packets that he called “quanta.” They now call those packets “photons.”
    Einstein was one of the pioneers in physics that ushered in the revolutionary theory of Quantum Mechanics. Unfortunately, he didn’t like the probabilistic bent the theory took. He was later quoted as saying, “God does not play dice (with the Universe).” Not only does God seem to play dice, He often throws the dice where no one can see them.

    • >>
      Actually Jim, the E=mc2 formula was in the paper on Special Relativity.
      Actually Rob, not exactly. In 1905, he published two papers on SR. The second specifically dealt with E=m*c^2 or mass-energy equivalence. Look up the info on his 1905 papers. The papers are: Photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, Special relativity, and Mass–energy equivalence.

    • >>
      . . . my post: “the E=mc2 formula was in the paper on Special Relativity ” is correct.
      It’s not exactly correct as you stated. In Einstein’s: “On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (his SR paper) the equation E = m*c^2 appears nowhere. The term m*c^2 does appear a couple of times near the end of the paper. In his: “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon It’s Energy-Content?” (the mass-energy equivalence paper) the equation m = L/c^2 appears at the end of the paper. (Einstein used L for energy.)
      What was the point of your original comment–maybe to correct something I wrote?

    • Oops, a typo. The title of Einstein’s paper should read: “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?”

    • Jim
      Einstein’s genius was in his thought experiments and the correct interpretation of the equations of special relativity. Note that Lorentz and Poincare were ahead of him in formulating the equations but they did not fully understand what it means.
      His argument with Bohr was about the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Most physicists today believe the violation of Bell’s Inequality proved Einstein is wrong. I disagree. I explained to Prof. Brian Greene of Columbia U why Bell’s theorem is a strawman’s argument that misrepresented Einstein’s position on the EPR paradox. I bet Einstein will have the last laugh on this matter. Just like Lorentz and Poincare did not understand their own equations, quantum physicists do not understand their own theory!

      • I do believe, Doctor, that an experiment was done not too long ago testing Bell’s inequality. I didn’t read the paper (and couldn’t critique it if I had), but I read a summary of it. Apparently they measured the collapse of the wave equation for entangled particles at several times the speed-of-light. Of course, the collapse of the wave equation would occur infinitely fast per EPR.
        Einstein believed in hidden variables. I believe those hidden variables have been ruled out too.
        The main problem with Maxwell’s equations is that they contain the speed-of-light. Special relativity solved that problem.

      • Unfortunately Dr Strangelove you are going to be sadly wrong, as Jim has stated all the wiggle room on this has been closed. The test and rigor put on QM are now so complete there is actually no alternative theory not even a speculation, that is something very very rare in physics.

      • Jim, LdB
        Yes that’s Aspect’s experiment in the 1980s that has been replicated since then. They claim they have proven Einstein is wrong. Here’s an analogy to simplify their argument. I have a coin in one of my closed hands. Three interpretations of reality:
        Einstein’s interpretation
        I don’t know where the coin is but I’m sure it’s in one of your hands
        Strawman’s interpretation
        With clever experiments, we can determine where the coin is before you open your hands
        Copenhagen interpretation
        You don’t even know if there’s a coin in any of my hand and you can never determine in advance if the coin exists because it magically materializes only when I open my hands
        You see Copenhagen is bizarre but it has become the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein objected to it, me too. We don’t believe in magic. The quantum physicists claim that since Einstein was explicitly against Copenhagen, he must have been advocating for the Strawman. So they conducted experiments and proved that Strawman is wrong. Therefore they now confidently conclude, Einstein is wrong and Copenhagen is right! LOL Welcome to wonderland!
        BTW this is not how I explained it to Prof. Greene. It’s a technical discussion of probability theory but same conclusion.

      • Let me restate better the Copenhagen interpretation
        The magic coin is in both of my closed hands. When I open my hands, it disappears in one hand and materializes in the other hand. Wow it should be called Copperfield interpretation!

      • @ Dr. Strangelove
        Your simplified example but is stupid but at the end of the day science doesn’t care what you think it cares what can be proved. Go stand with the earth is only 6000 year old religious group and bleat all you like because we will just ignore you.

  7. Haha wow WUWT is becoming worse by the week. Haven’t read any halfway decent scientific stuff here in months. Reality catching up with you guys?

    • Ah “benben” the he/she/it who is so virtuous that he/she/it has to hide behind a fake name and a made-up email (with “spammer” as part of the name) to hurl insults and protect a fragile ego from retort.
      Forgive me when I say “I don’t give a damn what you think”. Feel free to be as upset as you wish.
      Enjoy your continued irrelevance.

      • I’m not upset. It’s just interesting to note that WUWT went from a site that had some valid points to a site that puts words into the mouth of a dead person. One with pretty left-leaning political idea’s at that. Haha. I read all my e-mail addresses, so feel free to e-mail me if you want to. Anyway, I’ve tried plenty of times to engage here in substantive discussions but it’s pretty much impossible. So these little notes is what I’m reduced to. Sad!

    • Reality catching up with you guys?

      Nah, I stay caught up with reality as a matter of course.
      Agreed, WUWT has shifted focus slightly to concentrate a bit more on the politics of the CAGW fiasco. This is perfectly alright as the real battleground is in the political arena and not the scientific arena. As this is an editorial choice, there is nothing wrong with it.
      There are only so many ways one tell the story that the coral reef are not dying, there is no tipping point, the surface temperature data sets have been hacked to pieces, and on and on.
      Want to talk tree rings? Yarmal and YAD 063 got beaten to death, here. Sometimes you really do want to move on to something fresh.
      I must admit though, that my all time favorite post was on what is known as the “Finnish supra-long tree-ring chronology” That was almost 10 years ago, now. That really was tree rings done right and a welcome antidote to the YAD nonsense.
      Anyway, good to see you are still around. Stay in touch.

      • “TonyL March 24, 2018 at 11:51 am”
        For the record, the one single tree that set the alarmists rushing for mummy was YAD061.

      • The problem with politics is that it is super US focused, with a bit of random australia and UK. The US is so different from the rest of the world that it just becomes less interesting. I’ll read national review if I want to know about US politics. The environmental scientist in me is just a bit bored with WUWT nowadays.

      • ” Environmental scientist” not sure how one would even define that. Must be a government job description.

      • MarkW
        It sure will, if there’s not enough of the stuff.
        And we’re still only 250ppm away from human extinction. That’s the really scary bit for me.
        Thankfully, mankind has come to the planets rescue and helped with the rise of atmospheric CO2 by burning fossil fuels which, as we all know, existed as atmospheric CO2 at some 10 times the current level (roughly speaking).
        Mankind still has some work to do to ensure the planets survival.

      • Isn’t it nice to see that this “carbon fixation” thing is not just limited to the followers of CACA?

      • Ugh Monckton. Terrible physics. I tried a couple of times to engage with the readers here, but it’s pretty clear that no-one has taken the effort to read a basic textbook on the topic. But hey, here is a link to one of the standard books. Feel free to send me an e-mail (the mods have it) if you ever read it. I’d be interested to hear your opinion. But preferably after you read it, not before 😉

      • Benben,
        If you want to study atmospheric physics, I’d recommend this book:
        By atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1983 until his retirement in 2013. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.
        He knows that CACA is a crock, and that ECS is too low to worry any sane person.

      • ah yes Dr. Lindzen. First of all, I’m sure he’d vomit a bit in his mouth if he read the mr. monckton blog posts. Second, It’s all good and well that some retired professor has some technical issues with one parameter. You’re seriously picking your favourites if you use that as an excuse to disregard the work of thousands of other physicists.

      • “You’re seriously picking your favourites if you use that as an excuse to disregard the work of thousands of other physicists.”
        1. Only 800 persons involved in the latest IPCC report.
        2. Only about 20% of them were assigned to Working Group 1, on the attribution problem, which CMoB is writing about. The rest of them are just educated laymen as regard the physics & chemistry of the atmosphere. The other 80% are not “physicists.”

      • Continuing from above.
        It doesn’t matter what that textbook says. Clisci has, per Monckton, made a false and unexamined assumption abt the lapse rate that has led to a too-high climate sensitivity number. Nothing in that text will contradict his claim, because it’s never been considered as a posibility.

      • Roger, that’s… just not how physics works. And the whole ‘it doesn’t matter what the textbook says, I’ll keep believing what I want to believe’. It would be funny if the effects of such frankly dumb attitute weren’t so sad for our planet’s biosphere.

      • benben: It doesn’t matter what the textbook says, because it’s based on an unexamined assumption that is false if what Monckdon says is correct, and which renders the superstructure that’s been built on that assumption irrelevant.
        In addition to that, I believe that all mainstream climatologists are guilty until proven innocent. They are collaborators in the suppression of debate, and they dishonestly “shrink from inquiry.” They are most likely, in my option, “greenies” or careerists who have migrated into climatology to push their cult’s grab for power or to enjoy a cozy sinecure, not for truth-finding. I won’t take their word for anything.

  8. Benben, I think it’s because climate change meme is dying. It’s harder and harder to find scientists promoting this that don’t sport goatees.
    Be good.

    • Unfortunately when you believe in pink elephants, no amount of contradictory evidence will convince you otherwise; even if your intelligence is at a very high level. I actually believe that believing in a religion currupts your mind so much that your logic suffers and you actually get dumber. as a corollary to that if you are in an education system that doesnt teach you to think for yourself and just has you repeat ad nauseum religious chants, I think your brain actually gets permanently undeveloped so that even with a lot of deprogrammimg it will be too late for you to develop your brain to an extremely logical way of thinking so that even if you are successfully deprogrammed your brain has suffered irreversible damage. I have no evidence of this except just a lifetime of talking to people that have a belief system instead of having a scientific method system of living.

      • Alan, I believe you are correct. Additionally, independent logical thought is WORK.
        Many people who could do it, are just not willing to do it in our present age.

    • maybe in your little bubble. Over here in my country (the netherlands) even our right leaning party has changed tack and embraced the need for action. Mostly because wind turbines have become subsidy free in the past year!

  9. Maybe OT, but:-
    In the beginning, all was dark as night.
    God said “Let Newton be” and all was light.
    It couldn’t last. The Devil, howling “Ho,
    Let Einstein be” restored the status quo.

    • Except that Einstein shed more light rather than renewing darkness.
      Newton thought that gravity worked instantaneously at distance. Einstein gave reason to believe that it works at light speed, which fact has since been observed. For Newton, space and time were absolutes. To Einstein, they were relative.

  10. Of course he would, if for no other reason that it would annoy the less able, principalled but more fraudulent brains, and disrupt their studious collegiate deceit of easy money for bad science, as well as the assertion that statistical models prove anything by correlation. They just don’t. Only provable causal laws that are reliably repeatable experimentally do that..: here are 4 key points of clear doubt on the sciece facts:
    1. ACTUAL CHANGE: there is no significant change occuring worthy of any concern in fact, 0.8 deg in 288 degrees in 140 years while CO2 has gone from 280-400ppm. And any additional CO2 effect, 1.6W/m^2 in a natural 340W/m^2 GHE from water vapour per the computer forecasts, rolls off logarithemically with increasing concentration (Band saturation effect).
    2. CORRUPTION OF ACADEMICS AND POLITICIANS BY BIG MONEY: :particularly that the hypothesis is exploited to support energy policies that must make any supposed change as advertised worse by law for a fast snake oil buck, on the engineering and physics facts versus the better available but unsubsidised alternatives we already have.
    3. TIME SCALE: The time scales involved are thousands of years, not decades.Long term change is VERY SLOW, because the enrgies involved are very big, and dwarf humn impact, maybe up a bit in a lifetime, , maybe down a bit, unnoticeable (versus regional climate change which is), not accelerating, and so far in the noise the real amount iof any AGW is both inseperable and borderline detectable – per the IPCC..
    4. CORRELATION: Finally,and tellingly, none of the data correlates CO2 with the problem over mutltiple time scales of decades, centuries or millenia, in particular there are significant periods of zero or negative correlation . Just for fun I went to woodfortrees and plotted absolute temperature against absolute CO2 level. I have added a link below: Spot the massive impact on the atmosphere that the catastrophic change in CO2, “the much abused principal driver of climate change”, has actually had since 1960, if it was even CO2. Not a lot. Not a lot.

    • Just for fun I went to woodfortrees and plotted absolute temperature against absolute CO2 level. I have added a link below: Spot the massive impact on the atmosphere that the catastrophic change in CO2, “the much abused principal driver of climate change”, has actually had since 1960, if it was even CO2. Not a lot.
      So temperature is not increasing 1 degree for every 1 ppm increase in CO2. That’s quite a relieve.
      Adjusting the scale does suggest there is some correlation.

      • Maybe you should try looking at it as ppm of CO2 increase per degree of temperature rise. Correlation is easier to establish.

      • Pop Piasa,
        If you are suggesting that the rise in CO2 was caused by the rise in temperature, that seems unlikely given the smooth rise in CO2 compared with the noisy rise in temperature. But the correlation will be the same whichever way you look at it.

      • Bellman, have you considered that the noisy rise in temperature is a result of oceanic oscillations and natural interglacial recovery?
        Man’s exponential increases in CO2 emissions have only resulted in linear tropospheric increases over the same period, what do you make of that?
        You appear to believe the horse pushes the cart, or more accurately, the cart pushes the horse- IMHO.

      • There are lots of reasons why temperature rise is noisy. But that doesn’t explain how a noisy temperature increase produces such a smooth increase in CO2.
        In any event there’s no need to assume much of the increase in CO2 is caused by increasing temperature when we know what’s actually causing it. All the CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels has to go somewhere.

      • But exteb nding the record into olthw er data sets also shows strong neagtive and no correlation. Which means any relationship is t small and dwarfed by other stronger effects. Sensitivity as defined elsewhere is O.2 in 288 divided by 90 in 310. 0.002, or 0.2%. Barely significant, if ALL the change was due to CO2. Not catastrophic.

      • But extending the record into other longer period data sets also shows strong negative and no correlation. Which means any relationship is small and dwarfed by other stronger effects. Sensitivity as defined elsewhere is O.2 in 288 divided by 90 in 310. 0.002, or 0.2%. Barely significant, if ALL the change was due to CO2. Not catastrophic.

  11. “Many distinguished, contemporary scientists are skeptics, too.”
    I think the term skeptic needs to be defined before you claim this. It is virtually impossible to find a sane scientist who does not accept we are warming and that man is playing some part in the warming because of our burning of fossil fuels. If you think I am wrong, name a few. The only question is how much is on us and how much damage is ahead of us? The term skeptic really means skeptical of any future trouble. The most famous skeptics quoted (Curry, Spencer, Watts) round here all accept….
    … the greenhouse effect is real.
    … the planet is warming.
    … man has contributed to some of this warming.
    They just don’t think the future looks so bleak.
    And I am sorry, but to say Einstein would have been a skeptic is meaningless nonsense.

      • “Climate Realist” might be a better descriptor. But no matter; the Believers, in their zealotry would still refer to him as a deny R.

    • Les Woodcock.
      Many distinguished scientists share Happer and Schmidt’s view that the GHE of increased CO2 is trivial, and that more plant food in the air is good thing.

    • I’m a sane scientist and I do not accept your propositions. I could list many more sane scientists who would disagree with you; but I’ll just start with Piers Corbyn.

      • Simon
        Whichever way you look at it, Piers is saner than his brother.
        Doesn’t say too much for either of them though, I guess they both start at a fairly low level. However I’ll take Piers any day over Jeremy.

    • It was virtually impossible to find a sane scientist in Russia who did not accept Lysenko’s theories.

      • Killed might be a bit extreme, but ruined and possibly incarcerated or indentured for sure.

      • Killed is exactly right.

        From 1934 to 1940, under Lysenko’s admonitions and with Stalin’s approval, many geneticists were executed (including Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii, Georgii Karpechenko and Georgii Nadson) or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist and president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943.

  12. Tried for fun to edit the wikipedia page about Will Happer. The edits are reverted in less than one minute. These alarmists are diligent!!

    • Ah, naive innocence. How refreshing.
      Slap in lots of heavy duty references next time, and don’t do more than two edits a day. And be polite.

      • After you have made the specified minimum of cleared edits you may (and are encouraged to) edit as frequently as you see the need. They send out attaboys (from robots I think) when you make substantial edits. If it’s something or someplace you know alot about, leave an easter egg for progeny by contributing.

    • If you follow the rules and cite your facts, your contribution will stay.
      Hearsay or opinions about public figures are strictly discouraged and will be removed, I think it says in the tutorial.

  13. I’m sure a lot of people would’ve loved to hear what Richard Feynman would have to say about the current climate circus. I’d say he’s quoted a lot more often by people on the skeptic side, although Hansen mentions him quite a few times in his book Storms of My Grandchildren.
    I’d also liked to have seen Christopher Hitchens take a closer look at the subject.

      • She was awarded the NASA exceptional achievement medal, which sort of trivializes Tyson’s NASA distinguished public service medal, at least to this plebe. All this without being the star of anything TVland. Perhaps she’s just not photogenic?

      • Oops, I didn’t catch her age. Nobody wants to learn from old folks these days, especially not on TV.

      • ” Joan is a CACA skeptic”
        Your link doesn’t say that. It says that she thinks solar variations have an effect on climate, and specifically the NAM. Even the IPCC includes an allowance for solar forcing. It doesn’t say she thinks solar forcing is an alternative explanation for recent warming. It’s a hard case to make, since solar forcing has been going down.

      • CO2-forced warming is the “alternative explanation” for modern warming. Natural warming is the null hypothesis. That’s if you want to follow the scientific method, of course. Not convenient for Warmists.

  14. I was getting ready to say the very same thing. Einstein wrote a paper entitled “Why Socialism” and it he stated the following: “I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.”
    Which brings us to a hard fact. Intelligence, i.e.IQ, and wisdom, i.e. Common Sense, are not the same thing. Einstein had a stellar IQ, but his lack of common sense were highly questionable. For instance, it was a common understanding in the 50s-60s that he actually left home one morning, and forget to put on his trousers.

    • Ergo……we have highly intelligent politicians, who have no common sense, and leave their houses without their trousers, or rather, many of them have been caught leaving the houses of, errrr, friends, without their trousers.
      However, I’m not sure that’s entirely true either, as they usually ‘trouser’ all the booty they can amass, so leaving houses without their trousers would leave them very poor.
      I’m not sure where I’m going with this…………Suggestions?

    • He also walked into an open manhole. A photo was shot of him emerging, but the photographer was persuaded not to publish it and to give up the negative. (Or so I’ve read somewhere.)

  15. Simon, as a skeptic I do believe that there is a GHE and that FF contribute to it., just not very much. However, I also think the quotes in the article clearly indicate that Einstein would have been a skeptic. Warmists clearlyhave no respect for the scientific method, so instrumental in bringing us the benefits of modern science. All this post-modern BS posing as science has to contribute to the discussion is that consensus rules. Einstein clearly did not believe that. He certainly did not believe in so-called ‘settled science’, as he was on the forefront of unsettling it. Simon, I also think that what Einstein believed is relevent to today’s world.
    As an older (75) American I am somewhat disgusted with the younger set who seem more susceptible than ever to the charlatans pushing all manner of garbage (including CAGW). Is it that our education system has become a bastion of group-think and fuzzy-wuzzy emotions?
    I very much like co2islife’s idea to KISS. Simple ideas such as the obvious benefits of CO2, the lame thinking of settled science, and the inability of computers to escape the biases of their programmers.

    • Let us add the ridiculous idea of dark matter and dark energy to the list of scams Physicists should be ashamed

      • If you are convinced they are sc@ms as you call them, then please try to explain why galaxies rotate faster then they should and the accelerating expansion of the galaxy without them.
        Small minds tend to dismiss anything they don’t understand as a sc@m.

      • Why should physicists be ashamed of making and testing hypotheses based upon observational evidence? That’s the scientific method.

    • Jon
      “Simon, as a skeptic I do believe that there is a GHE and that FF contribute to it., just not very much.”
      Forgive me, but that is a belief, not a scientific observation. Just what’s not needed in the discussion.
      As was quoted earlier on Einstein “we know one thousandth of one per cent of nature” (I paraphrase). So quite how any scientist can claim to bottle climate change and condemn CO2 as the culprit when literally trillion upon trillions of different, and competing combinations of factors influencing the climate are occurring, across the globe, at any given moment in time, is quite beyond me.
      A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and humankind has little knowledge, relative to mother nature. But we plug all our miserably simplistic calculations into numerous super computers, that collectively can’t approach the capacity of a single human brain, and expect answers to come spilling out.
      Einstein (to mention but one brilliant scientist) solved, what, ten, perhaps twenty intractable problems in his lifetime (and I’m demonstrating my profound ignorance of science in that statement) but has there been a single human problem solved by a computer to date? I’ll wager not, because stupid people hide behind computers (say’s he tapping away on a PC, but then I am stupid in that I’m uneducated) and real scientists use computers as an intermediary tool.
      And I’ll cite Anthony Watts as a clever scientist who uses computers as a tool, not a solution, in discussing the climate change conundrum. Anthony didn’t rush off when he saw the distortion of climate science and produce reams of scientific papers to refute the claims of AGW. He used the simple medium of communication that computers have given us to stimulate a conversation.
      And science is, after all is said and done, a conversation. It’s most certainly not, in my ignorant opinion, a tit for tat, competing, computer calculation, based on futuristic scenarios, dreamed up by electronic circuits, programmed by teenagers, founded on idealistic principles.
      Seriously, this whole climate science scenario is little more than witchcraft, brought into the 21st century by anxious people, justifying their irrational fears, producing disasterous outcomes, by feeding computers nonsense, to produce more nonsense.

      • Jon
        Sorry. On reading that back it might sound like I was having a go at you, but I’m not.
        And as an asides, and completely off topic, but relevant to our youth today, there was a rally around the world today demanding change in US gun laws.
        Firstly, what has US gun laws to do with the rest of the world? Secondly, were the guns used in recent US school shootings legal? Thirdly, I didn’t see world wide reaction to the Dunblane school killings, and the UK has amongst the strictest gun laws in the world, but the perpetrator, Thomas Hamilton, was a gun club member and well known to the police.
        And first hand information here, my best friend, a Dunblane Police Officer knew Hamilton. He described him as quiet, a bit moody, but no one to be feared. My friends son was in the class above the one Hamilton slaughtered that day.
        And whilst I don’t agree with firearms as a day to day item of convenience (or protection, however one phrases it) America has grown up with the issue. To disarm the majority of peaceful gun owners, for the sake of virtue signalling, whilst criminals who already have access to illegal weapons continues is, in my opinion, a big mistake.
        As someone observed, somewhere in the recent past: “the recent terror attacks in London and Manchester couldn’t have happened in Texas. Every armed, law abiding citizen would have drawn their legally held weapons and blown the bastards away”. (Paraphrasing).

      • Rob
        It is impossible for a computer to solve a problem without human intervention.
        “computerized engine control systems have reduced the pollution emitted by motor vehicles by a significant amount.”
        No, I’m sorry, but humans invented the ICE, then introduced computerised engine controls to reduce emission, and programmed the computers to do their bidding.
        The computer you talk about didn’t solve the problem, it merely undertook the commands given to it by a human being, or collection thereof.
        At best, one might describe the computer as managing emissions, on human instruction.

      • Rob
        PS, I’m an elderly person that Lived in industrialised Glasgow (Scotland) in the 70’s.

      • In the first place, kindly keep your rude remarks to yourself.
        Secondly, I’m well aware of how a modern fuel injection system works, I have been stripping, rebuilding and racing cars and motorbikes since the early 1970’s.
        Computers and fuel injection systems are made by man and similarly instructed by man. It therefore stands, that a computer never solved anything on its own, it must be instructed how to do so by a human.
        If you fail to understand that, I assume you consider computer modelling of the climate system credible as they are invariably created on computers.

      • Of course smog only existed in Southern California which is, naturally, the centre of the universe.

      • The pollution you speak of was fixed by catalytic converters, not engine controls. Engine controls are designed to increase efficiency to meet mandated MPG requirements. They give greater control than mechanical controls that used to provide the same functionality, but with slower response, and less reliability.

      • >>
        Rob Bradley
        March 24, 2018 at 7:38 pm
        Please note, unless you understand how fuel injection works in a modern ICE, get lost.
        Tsk, tsk, tsk, Rob. A computer, like my slide rule, does nothing unless some human makes it do something. Computers have no internal motivation to solve problems. That motivation comes from a human programming it.
        My slide rule can multiply and divide numbers. If I set it on my desk, it won’t multiply or divide numbers by itself. It will sit there forever–doing nothing. And even if I pick it up and move the slide, the slide rule has no idea of what numbers I’m multiplying or dividing. A computer is no more aware of its actions either.
        To say a computer solved a problem is shorthand for saying that a lot of engineers designed, built, and tested the hardware; and a lot of software engineers designed, built and tested the software.

      • As someone observed, somewhere in the recent past: “the recent terror attacks in London and Manchester couldn’t have happened in Texas. Every armed, law abiding citizen would have drawn their legally held weapons and blown the bastards away”.

        Manchester was a suicide bomb attack. How would every armed citizen firing into the confusion have helped anyone?
        And how would a well-armed militia deal with a terrorist firing his legally obtained weapon from a hotel room into a crowd of people?

      • Bellman,
        The police in Vegas were very slow to respond, even though two were already in the Mandalay Bay. Had an armed citizen been on the 32nd floor and heard the gunfire, he or she could have shot his or her way into the murderer’s rooms (a sprawling suite) and killed him.
        Unfortunately there weren’t any armed members of the unorganized militia, ie the People, on that floor the night of the concert. Just a deranged mass murderer.
        In the case of the Parkland school massacre, four Broward County deputies waited outside the building while the murderer slaughtered the innocents. Again, an armed citizen was called for, ideally a staff member like the coach and teacher who died protecting students.

      • Bellman,
        “Manchester was a suicide bomb attack. How would every armed citizen firing into the confusion have helped anyone?”
        Fair comment, however the London Bridge murders were perpetrated by terrorists with knives, presumably they couldn’t get hold of firearms because of the UK’s strict gun control and anti firearms culture. So a double headed coin, if firearms were readily available the killings could have been worse, on the other hand, citizens with side arms might have shot the terrorists immediately, or a gun battle may have ensued.
        Difficult to quantify, but on the whole, as an ex policeman, I would far rather deal with a nutter armed with a knife than a firearm.
        The Paris shootings were perpetrated by individuals with guns. And there are many other atrocities committed by people with firearms, notably, more recently, in US schools.
        Now I don’t condone firearms, in fact I’m vehemently opposed to hand guns as they are, in the main, designed for one purpose alone, to kill people.
        But gun reform in the US can’t involve emasculating law abiding citizens by relieving them wholesale of firearms overnight, and licensing of weapons means little to criminals with such a rich, and abundant source of weapons. Gun culture is too deeply engrained, and the criminals, who by definition, won’t be relieved of their weapons through gun reform, would have a field day were every honest citizen disarmed.
        I also understand that whilst Washington may issue gun control measures, individual states have their own power over gun control. Having said that I’m not familiar with local and national government operations in the US, so forgive me if that’s wrong.
        I suspect eliminating firearms from US citizens, law abiding or otherwise, can only be a gradual process taking many years; tightening up the vetting and licensing procedures whilst seizing weapons from criminals. The first is a relatively easy, bureaucratic process, the second is a mammoth physical task.

      • @Bellman…And what would have prevented either of the terrorist acts?
        The tools that are use to kill are fungible. It may make you feel better to outlaw some, but the desire to kill is not concerned with breaking laws. Our society has hundreds of objects that can be used to kill, and most of them provide essential functionality that we cannot do without.
        The only solution is to identify the person with the psychosis and restrict their freedom to act out their desires. Until we have the ability to identify killers before they act, we are left with reacting when they strike. And I would prefer to have a firearm than be defenseless. Your choice is for you to make, but don’t try to make my decision for me.

        • Russ R.
          Were I ever to move to the US (not likely at my age) one of the first things I would ensure is that my family and I undertook firearms training, and furnished ourselves with side arms, despite my abhorrence of them (the side arms, not my family :)).
          I don’t agree with carrying firearms routinely, but needs must.

        • Jim Masterson
          Sorry Jim, my fault, a beer too many last night got me thinking. I did try to tenuously link it to climate.

      • Don’t apologize to me, HotScot, I don’t mind thread creep. But it seems to annoy our host.

      • Russ R. March 25, 2018 at 12:46 pm
        OK, continuing off topic, but among the many deadly objects in our environment are automobiles, as per the horrific Nice and other recent truck, van and car attacks. Ditto AN and FO for bombs.
        Besides which, full auto firearms are illegal in France, yet terrorists had no trouble obtaining them to kill people in Paris. More would have been murdered therewith on a train in Belgium, but for the actions of three US and other passengers. Breivik in Norway got his explosives and firearms legally.

      • “Interesting–on a thread about Einstein, we’re talking about gun control.”
        Yes, sorry about that. I’ll refrain from further comment as it’s off topic. Suffice to say that nothing here has convinced me that the UK would be a safer place if guns were freely available.
        As to Einstein, giving that this whole post is a fantasy about what he might have believed, I might speculate that as a life long pacifist and advocate for civil rights he might not have been that keen on the NRA.

        • Bellman
          I don’t believe I ever suggested the UK would be a safer place with freely available guns. I merely quoted a statement of another.
          Your pacifism is overtaking your objectivity.

      • Bellman,
        The NRA is far and away the largest civil rights organization in the US, and except for a few major church denominations, the biggest voluntary group of any kind. With over five million members and growing, it has more even than the biggest, involuntary labor unions, like the NEA, at 2.9 million members.

      • And, while of course you’re right that Einstein was a pacifist, his letter to FDR set the Manhattan Project in motion to build the first atomic bombs.

        • Chimp
          And since WW2 there has been no use of atomic weapons in conflict, so perhaps Einstein was right to promote the Manhatten project as a solution to global conflict.
          I believe the world is now more peaceful than it has ever been.

      • Chimp
        We can’t legislate against vehicles being used as weapons. Frankly, they are used every day as weapons by stupid drivers in any event. Millions of people are killed on the roads every year without terrorist intervention.
        The IRA had no problem acquiring automatic weapons in the 70’s and 80’s, many I believe, relics from Vietnam, shipped over from the US by sympathisers.
        The French are involved in many conflicts, as are the US and the UK and there are innumerable Kalashnikov originals and imitations readily available in street markets in N. Africa, a stones throw from France as a consequence of conflicts, local, national, or international.
        Nor is there any problem in making a fertiliser bomb, even a small one is devastating on an underground railway, chemicals for which are readily available in most DIY stores quite legally. Also, legally sourced weapons of any sort can be used by a maniac, which is something else we can’t legislate for, other than by banning firearms and garden fertilisers altogether, which then gets back to my earlier point about criminals not being constrained by such bans.
        And I think what we must also consider in the discussion, is that illegal use of firearms (explosives and vehicles included) are by and large perpetrated by criminals, not law abiding citizens. And law abiding citizens make up 99% of the population of the planet……roughly speaking. So what do we do? Discriminate against the majority, for the minority, once again? That’s something I have a real problem with.
        Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, in this case is most certainly not the solution.
        And I’ll apologise to Anthony once again for continuing a discussion that is most certainly off topic. My fault entirely.

      • Hot,
        Well at least the topic is, umm, topical this weekend.
        Of course I agree that nuclear weapons have served the cause of peace since ending WWII in 1945. With increasing proliferation to rogue and unstable, messianic regimes, that could change. The USSR was ruthless but rational, so deterrence worked with them and has done so with China. Even Pakistan and India seem to have their nukes under control, the former’s allegedly with US guards. Pakistan might however have given the Saudis disassembled warheads to counter Iran.
        And further concur that banning cosmetic features on semiauto rifles and pistols won’t work any better in 2018 than it did under Clinton in 1993. His ban did at least have the salubrious effect of costing 54 Democrat members of the House their jobs and making Gingrich speaker, the first GOP rep to hold that position in decades. Present members of Congress have that example ever before their eyes, which is why the Obama administration didn’t seek to renew the ban when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress in 2009-10.
        If all semiauto firearms were banned, then drug smugglers would just include full-auto submachine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns in their heroin shipments through tunnels under our porous border with Mexico. And crazed mass murderers would kill even more kids and adults by driving big rigs onto playgrounds at recess. If handguns could be made magically to disappear overnight, armed robbers would revert to far more lethal sawed off shotguns.
        Gun control is magical thinking and virtue signalling. Only lunatics would seek to disarm hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers, while leaving violent criminals free to ply their deadly trade with the essential tool of firearms, and whackos at liberty illegally to obtain means of destruction. And turn 100 million responsible American citizens into felons. In most jurisdictions, the police would refuse even to try to confiscate banned firearms from the citizens they know to be armed, including their own family members.

        • Sage words Chimp.
          Unfortunately many people consider ancient school punishments appropriate when dealing with real world problems. i.e. whoever twanged Mrs. Smiths nicker elastic must come forward or the whole class will suffer detention.
          Very good, but the whole class is sniggering with Fred who had the guts to humiliate the old [snip].

      • Hot,
        Yes, the world is awash in full-auto firearms. Hundreds of millions of them. The most plentiful are in the Kalashnikov family, ie AK-47, AKM and AK-74 assault rifles, RPK and RPK-74 light machine guns and their many derivatives in various calibers produced around the world, not counting PK and PKM general purpose machine guns.
        On the Mexican border, select fire AKs sell for $1200 to $1600, depending upon quality. Illegally in the US, they fetch typically $500 more, for a good price mark up for drug smugglers who add them to their wares. New, legal semiauto AK variants from Russia, China, Finland, Romania, Poland, Serbia, Hungary or the many other sources cost only around $750, but the price would go up if banned, so why not switch to select fire in that case?
        Leaving aside the ease of illegally converting SA to full auto.
        When I was in Afghanistan, AKs made in crude cottage industries there and across the border in Pakistan sold for fifty bucks. Profit margin right up their with smack.

      • HotScot,
        “I don’t believe I ever suggested the UK would be a safer place with freely available guns. I merely quoted a statement of another.
        Your pacifism is overtaking your objectivity.”
        Sorry if I gave the impression you said that – I was speaking in general, not addressing your original comment.
        I didn’t say I was a pacifist – it would be an untruth if I did.

      • Regarding gun crime in the UK:
        US academic: Britain needs more guns.
        Britons were surprised that during the World Wars, with young men carrying revolvers, submachine guns, magazine-fed, bolt-action rifles and Bren light machine guns all over the country, the murder rate went down. Probably not all that surprising, as so many young men were outside the country, shooting Germans, Italians and Japanese.

  16. Part of the problem is that the True Believers will not admit that they were wrong. For example snow was supposed to be a rare thing in the United States by now. About two hours ago I read the digital edition of Science News. They had a defensive little article that gee whiz there were four recent snow storms on the east coast but that doesn’t disprove the global warming hypothesis. They tried to say that global warming is heating the arctic and that heating the arctic is causing the jet stream to meander and with global warming we will see even more snow. Yeah right. So lack of snow proves global warming. But four recent snow storms can be explained away. I believe that Einstein would have had the courage to say that if the facts don’t fit the theory then the theory is wrong.

    • The fact that the AGW hypothesis can’t be falsified means that it is not an hypothesis in the first place, and precisely why it’s often referred to as a faith.

  17. During the next decades we will have negative PDO, AMO and weak solar cycles. Which might overlap with the possible millenia cycle going negative. It means that the record from 2016 might not be beaten before the next millenia cycle top. Which is in 1000 years! By this time the next ice age might be triggered, which means another 100 000 years before the 2016 can be beaten!

    • That’s assuming that 2016 actually was warmer than earlier years.
      Given the error bars on the data, that’s not a statement that can be made with any certainty.

    • Yes, both CAGW advocates and skeptics agree on that science but disagree on the overall impact, immense for the former and very little for the latter. Was there a point to your citing that information? Cheers.

    • The notches merely demonstrates the very GHE of CO2, O3 or water vapor , not your ignoramus nonsense.
      The energy absorbed in CO2 notch is indeed redirected to other wavelengths not just water vapor but also into the atmospheric window where emission to space comes from ground…
      And to emit the extra redirected energy the temperature of emitting material (ground and water vapor) must increase..
      Just basing physics that you stubbornly ignore.
      Hilarious !

      • Perhaps you should delve a bit deeper into what goes on at the molecule level according to quantum mechanics. The math is done by Hitran with Hitran generated graph at the link. The influence of CO2 is barely discernable. Less than 1 part in 1000. CO2 doesn’t come significantly back into play again until WV has greatly declined at about 10 km altitude.

      • Brett Keane
        Notches represent a reduced emission around some wavelengths. All GHG’s are thus visible, CO2, O3 and H2O. The latter is simply broader and so less conspicuous for spectroscopic reasons.
        This lack of radiation that results from more CO2 for example implies enhanced emission elsewhere in spectrum in order to conserve energy and energy balance at top of atmosphere.
        In particular it means enhanced emission in atmospheric window where it comes from ground. And this in turn is only possible if ground temperature increases.
        No way out of this basic physics.

  18. On this logic, you could say Einstein would have been an anti-vaccer too. And maybe even a skeptic of relativity. After all, it’s the consensus too, now, isn’t it?

    • Probably, but like all past consensuses, relativity is due for a makeover.
      In science, the consensus is almost always wrong, although later consensuses are liable to be less wrong than their predecessors, thanks to the scientific method. I’m not sure about the qualifier “almost”.

    • There is a robust consensus that Earth is not flat, that the CO2 GHE exists and CO2 indeed warms the planet. There is no consensus about how much .
      I guess Einstein, Feynman and the greatest physicists of the past would have agreed with this as well.
      All skeptics are not made equal.
      Some are plain idiots.

      • Gamma,
        The consensus that the earth is flat was replaced by the consensus that it is a perfect sphere. Newton predicted that it would be found an oblate spheroid, which was indeed discovered. Subsequent observations showed that earth’s shape is lumpy. That’s how science works, replacing consensuses by further observation and theory, getting closer to the truth or objective reality, but rarely if ever reaching a final consensus.
        That a CO2 GHE exists is the present consensus, but its robustness is subject to doubt. Probably this conclusion is closer to reality than that it doesn’t exist at all, but the science is far from settled. As Javier has shown, some scientists are convinced that under certain circumstances, more CO2 cools the surface and troposphere.
        At least one great physicist of the past, Ångström the Younger, disagreed with his colleague and fellow Swede Arrhenius about the GHE.
        As you note, the degree of warming to be expected from doubling CO2 is very much unsettled science as well. The consensus range estimate of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C hasn’t been narrowed since it was first made, based upon two WAGs with an arbitrary error margin, in 1979. Recent observations suggest ECS of less than 1.5 degree, close to if not lower than the laboratory, no feedback figure of 1.2 degree C.

      • No response needed, dear HotScot
        Since Chimp:
        -first actually just provides grist to my mills and confirms what I pointed out about consensus…
        It’s certainly not because science is by essence in permanent evolution that we do know nothing and consensus doesn’t exist and isn’t useful.
        Let me repeat it: There is robust consensus that Earth is not flat and GHE exist indeed. And It is not because Earth is not a prefect sphere or because we do not know how to quantify precisely the CO2 GHE that my statement is not true or won’t remain true forever.
        -second just expresses wishful thinking and ignorance of physics. GHE exists and for instance the graph linked to here:
        precisely demonstrates it very clearly. Only for those people not illiterate in physics of course.

      • Let me add this. I’m occasionally a sailor and just knowing that Earth is not flat was a major progress in this respect. And further assuming erroneously that Earth is a perfect sphere still remains a very good first order approximation that is quite satisfactory in most navigation problems.

    • They may hold a consensus based on the fact they have pretty hard evidence backing them. If anyone was stupid enough to claim they are right “because of consensus” send the to me and I will slap them. Science doesn’t work by consensus it works by prove it or perish principles.

  19. If Society Can’t Trust Science, What Can They Trust? Climate Alarmist is Playing San Francisco Judge as a Complete Fool
    Dr. Myles Allen must think that the San Francisco Judge is a complete fool. I just finished a post refuting many of his claims, but one example needed to be singled out. In his presentation, Dr. Myles Allen replaced the poster child Mt. Kilimanjaro, which was exposed as a fraud in the Climategate emails, with … Continue reading

  20. Any “old-school” scientist, meaning those who followed the scientific method if alive today would be a Skeptic/Climate Realist. The irony is that today, they would be called “anti-science” and “science d nayers”.

  21. I suspect that , like the late Stephen Hawking, Einstein might have bought into the “global warming” meme. The whole CAGW issue is political, not scientific, and Einstein was a Socialist.

    • He favored a single, socialist world government, the goal of CACA, so might well indeed have bought into the anti-scientific doctrine. But I prefer to think not, as the alleged science behind it is so egregiously bad.

  22. Chimp
    March 25, 2018 at 9:15 am: Indeed Angstrom did, while the fine experimental Optical Physicist Robert Wood refuted Arrhenius fully. The rest of the physics communuty, largely very practical folk in those days of great discoveries, soon shelved the ghe idea, as did Arrhenius himself. I see no reason not to respect him for that, and other work.
    Only charlatans with a marxist axe to grind and fellow travellers now hold that old belief, never proven to exist in an atmosphere. Berthold Klein and Konrad Hartmann for instance have disproven it in modern times too. Brett

  23. Anthony Watts
    I definitely see your point, but did you know towels are one big cause of the global warming, They have toxic chemicals to the environment.
    What do you think of this?

  24. Einstein was a skeptic about quantum mechanics too. However, the medium at the seance I recently attended told us Einstein now believes in both QM and global warming. /sarc

  25. It’s an interesting topic, but less about what Einstein actually thought than what he “likely would have thought”. The implication of the essay title is that Einstein is nowhere on record commenting about his contemporaries in fields of science that closely overlapped his own.
    Einstein was born in 1879 and died in 1955.
    Svante Arrhenius was born 1859, and died 1927. According to Wiki:

    In developing a theory to explain the ice ages, Arrhenius, in 1896, was the first to use basic principles of physical chemistry to calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will increase Earth’s surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[2][19][20] These calculations led him to conclude that human-caused CO2 emissions, from fossil-fuel burning and other combustion processes, are large enough to cause global warming.

    Milan Milankovich theorized earth’s historical climate was affected by its orbital path and rotation, which affect its relationship to the sun, and thus the solar insolation or radiation it receives. He calculated mathematically that it is the earth’s movement through the galaxy that has caused our ice ages. Milankovich was born the same year as Einstein (1879) and died only three years after him. Einstein would have been familiar with and commented on astronomical theories of climate.
    “Rachel Carson’s essays on the seas were appearing in journals across the U.S. in the 30’s, awakening people’s interests in environmental views of the planet.
    Wili Dansgaard, 1922-2011
    Hans Oeschger, 1927-1998
    Hubert Lamb, 1913 – 1997
    I think a little digging might reveal what Einstein did think about climate change and its causes. I hope Dr. Happer is planning further – and deeper – investigations into the subject.

  26. Most importantly, Einstein would have paid close attention to how well the establishment theory of global warming agreed with experiment. He famously stated:
    “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.”

    A bit late with this, but I don’t think there’s any evidence that Einstein said that.
    He has been quoted as saying, when asked how he’d have felt if Sir Alfred Eddington’s experiments had disproved his theory:
    “Then I would have felt sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct.”

    • It’s a conversion of words for his response to 100 author’s against Einstein or as it was german you will find it under “Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein” which actually is 28 authors and a list of 53 people who claim relativity was wrong.
      His rather candid response in german was “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough”. Over time various editors have altered it to that, you can see the connection with one experiment can prove me wrong.

      • No. It’s more likely it’s a paraphrase of a passage from “Induction and Deduction”.

        A theory can thus be recognized as erroneous if there is a logical error in its deductions, or as inadequate if a fact is not in agreement with its consequences. But the truth of a theory can never be proven. For one never knows that even in the future no experience will be encountered which contradicts its consequences; and still other systems of thought are always conceivable which are capable of joining together the same given facts.

        or from a note he made in 1922

        The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says “Yes” to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says “Maybe,” and in the great majority of cases simply “No.” If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter “Maybe,” and if it does not agree it means “No.” Probably every theory will someday experience its “No”—most theories, soon after conception.

        Reference a comment in Wikiquote.

Comments are closed.