Essay by Eric Worrall
First Published JoNova; Physicist Dr John Clauser, joint recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has slammed the climate crisis as “pseudoscience”.
NOBEL LAUREATE: “CLIMATE SCIENCE HAS METASTASIZED INTO MASSIVE SHOCK-JOURNALISTIC PSEUDOSCIENCE”
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.
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.
In a statement issued by the CO2 coalition, Nobel Laureate John Clauser Elected to CO2 Coalition Board of Directors – CO2 Coalition Dr. Clauser said that “there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world”
…
Read more: https://gript.ie/nobel-laureate-climate-science-has-metastasized-into-massive-shock-journalistic-pseudoscience/
What can I say? Dr. Clauser actually has a Nobel Prize in Physics, unlike say leading climate alarmist Dr. Michael Mann, who apparently confused a certificate of contribution with actually being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Dr. Clauser is not the only Nobel Laureate to slam climate science. Jo Nova points out 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 are also climate skeptics.
And who can forget that hilarious time PBS tried to dismiss thousands of climate skeptic Oregon Petition signatories as scientific nobodies, and randomly pulled out the signature of Edward Teller, the physics genius who designed the first Hydrogen Bomb? Teller’s signature somehow got blurred during PBS post production processing, but it was still recognisable enough so that questions were asked.
Don’t forget folks, settled science. /sarc
Update (EW): h/t JoNova – Corrected the spelling of Ivar Giaever’s name
An intelligent Nobel laureate, I almost don’t believe it.
Physics and chemistry are still real Nobels.
Physiology or Medicine is also relatively uncorrupted. In the past there have been controversies, though, as for lobotomy.
X-ray crystallographer Rosalind Franklin, despite Watson’s disparaging comments, probably would have shared the 1962 Prize for the structure of DNA, but tragically she died in 1958, IIRC. It can’t be awarded posthumously. Instead her boss Wilkins joined Watson and Crick.
Medicine is not untouched by the Marxist dystopia, one only need look at how the UK NHS has been taken with its troubling woke gender nonsense guidance
The Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine hasn’t gone to a Woke recipient that I know of yet. The education and practice of medicine of course has been gravely affected.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/all-nobel-laureates-in-physiology-or-medicine/
Two thirds of the 2015 Prize was for ivermectin, so disparaged by Big Pharma-captive US agencies during the CCP’s plandemic.
It’s only a matter of when the Nobel prize goes woke, not if
Given Swedish and Norwegian political involvement, I fear you’re right. The scientific prizes will go the way of Peace, Literature and the bastard grandchild Economics.
It already has. Cf Obama’s peace prize.
What does the NHS have to do with Nobels awarded that are related to medicine?
Medicine “relatively uncorrupted”? Neurology (pretty important part of Medicine) has been using a false ‘basis’ for many years according to this Whistleblower, and receiving grants (taxpayer $$) while other avenues of Research have been ignored.
I didn’t refer to medicine in general, but to the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. i guess that wasn’t obvious, despite context and capitalizing the Prize category.
OK, makes sense- I missed your point before commenting previously.
“Medicine is also relatively uncorrupted”
Really? Lots of debates in that world- just like the climate “debate”. Lots of special interests- personality clashes- claims and counter claims. OK to eat eggs or not? Pharmaceuticals? Now that’s a hornet’s nest.
Milo:
Sadly, multiple of my medical journals have started using woke teminology and an almost comical attempt to avoid admitting that there are genetic differences among different groups of people.
Examples: Using “birthing person” rather than “woman”, and suggesting that race or ethnicity has no role in disease incidence or response to medication.
I know someone who just graduated from medical school who related to me the “woke” indoctrination going on. No alternate views are allowed.
Example par excellence is the ongoing travesty of “gender affirming care” by allowing children to make life-altering medical decisions on very flimsy scientific evidence and usually little informed consent.
On this subject there is a glimmer of hope since multiple European medical associations have recently restricted medical & surgical therapies in
those < 18 y/o. Maybe class-action lawsuits will be needed turn the tide.
Hate to disagree, but half of the 2021 Nobel Prize for Physics went to CAGW computer modelers Klaus Hasselmann and Syukuro Manabe.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2021/press-release/
They were added on at the last minute because the Nobel Committee decided they needed to virtue signal about climate change. Manabe found how to make his GCM run warmer by adding in a bogus water vapor positive feedback loop. And Hasselmann invented fingerprints so we could blame natural climate change on human beings.
A case of Nobel cause sorruption?
Damn it! Try again:- “Nobel cause corruption”
Sadly, most of the Nobels are now inert
Ooooh … witty.
real sciences
Are you saying that Obama wasn’t intelligent? Shame on you.
Obama was the only Nobel Peace prize recipient in history to order the execution of an American citizen without first conducting a trial.
Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki was a 16-year-old United States citizen who lost his life on October 14, 2011, due to a drone airstrike ordered by Obama in Yemen.
Not sure that is true. Arafat won one and there is no way of knowing if he ordered an American killed.
Obama will without a doubt be awarded a second Nobel Prize for Bravery because he unselfishly used his home on Martha’s Vineyard to prove climate change sea level rise was a danger.
Well he’s certainly no PhD graduate.
O-man has some very fishy credentials from Columbia U.
Well, he got it for doing nothing, so it behooves folks to question the awarding process.
(unless there is a category for nicely pressed pants)
If there was then surely that award would have gone to one of his maids or batman (no not the masked one)
He’s certainly cleverer than most – his Martha’s Vineyard home is backed up by diesel generators and not a mm of sea level rise – don’t think his private jet is powered by renewables either
I took the bell off my bike. And won the Nobel Peace Prize!
OK I’ll log off 😶
The trickle is getting bigger.
That’s just age catching up with you!
Trickle, or flow?
That’s a real pisser of a comment.
“scientific nobodies”
Everyone of the “famous” scientists who are pushing global warming were also scientific nobodies before they latched onto the scam.
Heck, the vast majority of them never were scientists in the first place. None of them have degrees in atmospheric science.
They’re computer gamers.
And not very competent ones, at that.!
Don’t be so sure! 🙂
Too busy playing their climate games to have studied statistics.
(Recall that Phil Jones did not even know how to create an Xcel graph!)
I’ve just finished my climate model, which clearly shows 6 feet of snow covering the Sahara desert – based on this highly accurate data, I’d like to build a ski resort there and am now taking cash investments, minimum $5000 non refundable – get in early, it’s a guaranteed winner!
It did recently snow in the Atlas Mountains.
And you need more proof that CO2 is causing the climate crises?
“Heck, the vast majority of them never were scientists in the first place. None of them have degrees in atmospheric science.”
More complete garbage from the make it up man. Shall I provide you with a list of climate scientists who have degrees relevant to the subject. OK here you go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
Gosh Mark you seem to have run away. Tactic No.1 when he gets called on his nonsense.
Dude, tell who knows more about radiation physics, an advanced physics degree or an advanced atmospheric degree? Who has experimented with EM waves and molecular interaction?
I’ve often wondered how Giorgio Parisi must’ve felt when they announced at the last minute that he would be splitting his 2021 Nobel Prize for Physics with Manabe and Hasselmann. There he was, finally to be recognized for decades of work on complex systems, when the Nobel Committee decided they had to virtue signal and add in a couple of computer programmers who helped the whole CAGW scam. And he had to split the money with them, too.
Manabe’s award is truly an insult to science. The Nobel Prize is now a comedy festival. It no longer reflects on the value of the work and results achieved to better the human condition. The notion that a trace gas can directly alter Earth’s energy balance is a sick joke.
Clauser should have refused on the basis that by accepting the award he would be party to the circus that the awards have become.
Freeman Dyson was also skeptical of AGW and had approximately zero respect for the predictive power of climate models.
Excellent analysis of climate models justifying that zero respect is found in this lecture by Dr. Pat Frank 🙂
“No Certain Doom: On Accuracy of Projected Global Average Surface Air Temperatures”
Thank-you Janice. Nice to see you here. Trust you’re well. 🙂
Thank you! I am healthy and doing “okay.” Thanks for taking the time to say, “Hi.” 😊
I ran across a quote from Carl Sagan that is pertent to climate science. It is from his book, “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”.
“Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”
“and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority;”
Does that sound remarkably like us in 2023?
To Freeman Dyson we can also add (among many others):
Dr. William Happer
https://co2coalition.org/teammember/william-happer-2/
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
https://co2coalition.org/teammember/richard-lindzen/
Dr. Harold Lewis
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/
Dr. S. Fred Singer
https://heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/s-fred-singer/
and (as mentioned elsewhere on this thread)
I have NO DOUBT Dr. Richard Feynman would ADAMANTLY stand up and declare the conjecture that human emissions cause “Global Warming” and/or “Climate Change” to be: WRONG.
Lukewarmer (voice like Elmer Fudd): But, Mister Feynman, it might, just possibly be that there is a teeny-tiny little bit of warming or some climate change or something that we need to do something about caused by human CO2.
Feynman: Do you have any data to prove any of your assertions?
Lukewarmer: No, I’m just kind of worried and I don’t like to take a position one way or the other because I don’t want anybody to get mad at me.
Feynman: What do you care what other people think?
LukeW: Surely, you must be joking, Mr. Feynman?
Feynman: 🙄
Father of Hurricanology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray
Father of Climatology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Bryson
Yes! Great cites, Milo.
We have demonstrated in the lab that CO2 has the ability to capture certain frequencies of infra-red light and transfer the captured energy to surrounding molecules.
From this it is not unreasonable to assume that CO2 in the atmosphere is doing the same thing.
I doubt Feynman would reject out of hand, the possibility of CO2 affecting climate.
As a physicist, he was quite aware of the possibility of impacts that were too small to measure using existing technologies.
I find evidence for a misnamed “greenhouse effect” from diatomic molecules in our air. For me the issue is, what quantitatively is that effect?
Would doubling of CO2, for example, from three molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules in AD 1850 to six molecules in AD 2100 yield one, two, three or four degrees C of average global warming?
Available evidence suggests one to two degrees, ie no worries. The benefits from global greening far outweigh any possible negative effects from warming. In fact 1 to 2 degrees C of warming would also be beneficial.
Three or four degrees of warming are however pure fantasy. In 1979, Manabe’s model found two degrees and Hansen’s GIGO model four degrees, leading to Charney’s guess of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, with a 0.5 degree MoE.
My personal estimate is that the impact of doubling would be between 0.3 and 0,7C.
It’s based on the negligible difference between the warming rates of the period 1850 to 1950 and 1950 to present.
1950 being the time when global emissions of CO2 took off as the world recovered from WWII.
I didn’t write clearly enough.
I wasn’t trying to assert that Feynman would categorically reject as impossible the “greenhouse effect.”
Rather, I meant to say that
the assertion that HUMAN CO2 is causing meaningful effects would be deemed: NOT PROVEN, by Feynman.
The data indicates that NATURAL CO2 is the controlling driver:
1) NATURAL is 2 orders of magnitude greater than human.
2) temperature drives rise of atmospheric CO2, not vice versa;
and
3) any effects of human CO2 are either:
(1) too small to be measurable;
or
(2) ineffective as a controlling driver of the greenhouse effect because of the overwhelming magnitude of the natural effects.
And, because the AGWers are asserting a NOT PROVEN guess as fact, moreover, asserting their conjecture as fact when data exists which contradicts their conjecture (see, e.g., John Christie’s graph of data versus climate model projections), Feynman would say they were “WRONG.”
The data shows that CO2 driven by temperature lags temperature by between 900 and 1000 years. It’s only been 170 years since the end of the LIA, that’s not enough time for temperature changes to be the primary driver.
Heck, the cooling at the end of the MWP is only around 300 years ago. That cooling is still being processed by the system.
“From this it is not unreasonable to assume that CO2 in the atmosphere is doing the same thing.”
CO₂ is undoubtedly doing the same thing. The question is, how does the climate respond to the extra kinetic energy?
Small changes in cloud cover or in the rate of evaporation/condensation, and there’d be no change in sensible heat.
The experiment uses 100% CO2 and gets a rise of a couple of degrees in a well insulated container. None of these things is anything like the atmosphere. Not a valid experiment is the only conclusion that is even slightly scientific.
The radiation physics of CO₂ is well-understood.
For CO₂ vibrationally excited after absorption of a 15 μ photon, the rate of collisional decay is thousands of times faster than radiative decay, in the troposphere.
So, there’s no doubt that the process converts radiant energy into kinetic energy.
The question is, what the climate does about it. The perturbation is tiny (0.035 W/m² annually). Global climate is governed by hugely energetic changes in aqueous phases. Small adjustments of the hydrological cycle can zero out any CO₂ effect.
When you look at H2O absorbs from near IR, CO2 absorption pales in comparison.
Look at the scale of near IR on the left – 10³ W/m². Look at the right side for far IR – 1 W/m².
If you want to control temperature, guess what one needs to deal with.
One the known unknowns with the geo-engineering solution of putting a reflecting material at TOA. Will it cut down evaporation? Will fewer clouds result? Will the loss of clouds result in a competing increase in solar reaching the earth, such that nothing really happens other than less rain?
The bands that CO2 absorbs are almost completely covered by H2O, however they aren’t completely covered, so there is a little bit of energy out there for CO2 to absorb.
Also there are places on the planet where there is very little H2O in the atmosphere, deserts and the poles. Additional CO2 would have more of an impact in those places.
Anyway, I believe all of that is already covered when calculating the 0.035 W/m² annually number that Pat Frank has been quoting.
“””””Additional CO2 would have more of an impact in those places.”””””
I have thought about this a little. If CO2 was causing surface heating it would show up in the desert at night when the surface was trying to rid itself of energy. Yet temps drop precipitately as if CO2 has little effect. With little water vapor in the desert on might think something in AGW is incorrect.
I have NO DOUBT Dr. Richard Feynman would ADAMANTLY stand up and declare the conjecture that human emissions cause “Global Warming” and/or “Climate Change” to be: WRONG.
__
If it [theory] disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it. Richard Feynman
Y’know it hasn’t metastised into ‘Massive Shock-Journalistic Pseudoscience’. It always was pseudoscience from the very moment failed science teachers set up ‘climate science’ courses and started teaching crap because they couldn’t understand real science and the maths was too hard. Physics is the discipline that teaches you how to understand the physical world we live in and study how it works. Climate enthusiasts really should have stuck to working in MacDonalds if they couldn’t understand science.
When I heard that C02 causes BOTH drought and flood, hot and cold, both more and less, I KNEW it was religion and not science. A single cause with opposite effects.
Ah, but CO2 works in mysterious ways.
‘CO2 moves in a mysterious way. It’s money to bestow. It plants the heat into the sea. And drives the drought and storm.’
Definitely a religion, then…
I didn’t hear it from the BBC or other media.
I wonder why…
Too busy buying kiddie porn from the kiddies…
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2023/07/12/huw-edwards-named-by-wife-as-bbc-presenter-accused-of-paying-teen-for-sex-pics/
The creep is a moral hero in journoland
Phil Schofield certainly thinks so – it’s taken the heat off him.
In the UK at least, just to be clear Edwards did nothing illegal – the guy may be morally bankrupt, but legally he’s in the clear.
As far as we know so far – there is more coming out and the Police will be keeping an eye on the BBC investigation.
Innocent until proven guilty
Unless you’re on twatter
Settled science that needs more research, what a concept!
As soon as any alarmist talks of climate consensus, they’ve lost
“settled science” based on computer models…Laughable.
I’m convinced that the current warm period is just a cyclical warming from the cold 1970s. There’s so much evidence also supporting the idea that the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s were just as hot or hotter than today
Peak sunshine is gradually moving northward. There is more land in the NH than the SH and land warms faster than oceans cool so the current warming is about 500 years into a 11,000 year warming cycle. A long way to go yet.
The next cooling trend will be when the permafrost starts to migrate south again. That is more than 100 years away.
The current trends have been recorded since the 1800s with the occasional disturbance through other climate factors.
Yup. The temperature trend for any given time scale can be up or down. The only thing it cannot be is unchanging.
The world needs more honesty like this in pointing out the iron curtain that has engulfed us.
Fear not, he’ll be cancelled
He deserves another Nobel for Peace (and justice).
He certainly deserves better than he will now get from the alarmist brigade
One of my favorite physics Nobel laureates is Richard Feynman. He also had a way with words. His relevant quote here is “If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part.”
Love it, thanks
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.
Richard Feynman
Janis, this is a result of an experiment done by Anthony showing CO2 doesn’t cause warming.
People will poopoo this but they should show experiment that demonstrates the opposite.
“…Dr Clauser, an experimental and theoretical physicist…”. This guy is Sheldon and Leonard rolled into one.
Any physicist who understands fluid flow, heat transfer and thermodynamics knows that the climate crisis (or climate emergency) is a big scam.
Any secondary school kid who understands CO2 is the gas of life itself knows the climate crisis is a big scam
Great to see Dr Clauser speaking the truth – however, under the modern day Orwellian regime, how long will it be before his award is retracted?
I have been saying for ages that “climate science™” is FAR more dangerous to human existence than “climate change” can ever be.
bnice:
Its the policy prescriptions offered by the alarmists, based on biased science, that are far more dangerous to civilization than what the climate is likely to give us.
If we would stop funding politicized climate science, it would wither back to its backwater status in most Physics Departments.
So much mathturbation to find anomalies so far below measurement resolution (at least two orders of magnitude) no one familiar with physical measurements would believe them.
The CAGW folks think the common folks are too stupid to recognize what is going on. But believe me, there is a reason CAGW is never high on a lot of folks list. Brick layers have turned deal with calculating mortar gaps so they don’t end up with 1/8th of a brick at the end of a wall. Tool and die machinists, mechanics, carpenters, laboratories, etc., all deal with measurements and understand uncertainty when trying to make proper fitting of joints and clearances. These folks also know how to read home thermometers. You think that in the back of their minds they don’t say bull pucky?
True but then Suki Manabe was awarded the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics for his atmospheric modelling that connected CO2 to global warming.
So this is an interesting twist. I wonder if the committee sought Cluaser’s views on climate science before the award.
This is important and really good news. Kudos to Dr. Clauser.
Eric I guess if Dylan Mulvaney can claim to be a woman, Mann can claim to be a Nobel Laureate. As you well know, the problem we mere humans face is that the Global “Ministry of Truth” aka the Mainstream Media among other laughable monikers, supports these pretenders while publicly discrediting or completely ignoring the real scientists; then deploy their propagandists in the public schools and universities to turn our youth into mindless drones who unquestioningly absorb the menacing propaganda and rebel against liberty.
Ahh for the good old days when our rebellion had real meaning, like protesting a draft to fight communists in the jungles of southeast asia, while the real communist’s were taking over the colleges and mass media behind our backs. “Nothing to see here folks. Move along.”
This is a discussion by Andy May – April 2022.
Climate Change & The Question of Science
The only shortcoming is that one cannot receive government funding to prove existing governmental policy is based on a scientific falsehood or is on shaky scientific ground.
Its going to be fascinating to see how IPCC AR7 gets around the facts of unchanging extreme weather trends, a lack of sea level acceleration and the exaggerated ECSs of climate models and their inability to duplicate existing climatic phenomena, including the lack of tropospheric hot spots.
They get around by saying “The climate cliff is 10 years away”. It’s always ten years away. Like the guy on the corner with “the end is near” sign. It’s always going to happen *tomorrow*.
Yawn! True tilty heads have moved on from the Mild Metastasisation-
Earth Has Tilted 31.5 Inches. That Shouldn’t Happen. (msn.com)
New computer modelling has been urgently commissioned in order for the UN International Panel for Coordinated Correctness to redistribute two-legged fauna for the ultimate spatial spread of burps farts and terrestrial balance before we all spin off into space. The mandatory doomsday clock on your Metaverse hardware is now ticking.
Oh, no! Not more models! That’s what got us into this mess in the first place…
Perhaps someone could survey the remaining living Nobel laureates in relevant subjects and see how many of them agree or disagree with Dr Clauser.
Here’s some disgraceful propaganda lying from Nature journal:
Satellite studies show the oceans are greening, just like the land.
When CO2 increases plants obviously increase in response right?
Scientifically yes but politically no.
Politically it has to be a result of warming, not CO2 itself.
Because that would make CO2 look good.
So lets treat Nature readers like idiots and say it’s all from warming.
The greening oceans and phytoplankton increase that is.
And not even mention the CO2 fertilisation effect.
It’s perfectly logical – our other studies shows that human made warming will decrease phytoplankton and make the oceans less green.
So if oceans are instead getting more green – that’s from warming too.
And less or more – either way it’s gotta be bad right?
Anything else is misinformation.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02262-9
Hmmm… Increased plant growth sounds like a pretty powerful negative feedback loop! Oops, gotta ignore those negative feedback loops…
Is there any radiation in bands that CO2 can absorb that isn’t absorbed already? That is, does additional CO2 in the atmosphere absorb radiation that would otherwise freely pass through to space? Is it the case that extra CO2 just means that the relevant radiation is just absorbed closer to the surface?