Author Topic: heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.  (Read 31508 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline snarkysparkyTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 419
  • Country: us
I don't understand.  This man is an intellectual giant in the science community. He has aligned himself with the very unscientific group "co2coalition"

Co2 coalition has no credible challenge to anthropomorphic global warming.

why would a man with that history of achievement take such a position unless he really believed it to be the truth.

I realize this could be a very short thread before it is locked.   I ask every participant to just review the facts which are accepted in the scientific community and not go to conspiracy sources.

 

Offline Halcyon

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6126
  • Country: au
I realize this could be a very short thread before it is locked.   I ask every participant to just review the facts which are accepted in the scientific community and not go to conspiracy sources.

I suspect you're right. These kinds of topics tend to descend into chaos. At the end of the day, regardless of one's beliefs/opinions one way or another, it's an area of science which is relatively new and rapidly changing. Ultimately, anything we can do to make this place more habitable is a good thing, not just a fixation on CO2 emissions. Our reliance on plastics that simply get thrown out is one change I've personally made. Instead of food containers that crack or absorb smells/colours, I've opted for glass containers which are far more durable (if you look after them) and easier to keep clean. Or consider buying quality over quantity when it comes to household appliances and other goods.

I rarely even come close to filling my kerbside rubbish bin. Usually just a small bag or two at most each week. In contrast, my recycling is always full and I usually have to utilise next door's recycle bin as well.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2023, 02:43:22 am by Halcyon »
 

Offline pickle9000

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2439
  • Country: ca
Yup we only have one earth.
 

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7276
  • Country: ca
@OP you just created a clickbait topic to exactly start and enjoy a flamewar, didnt ya
Facebook-free life and Rigol-free shack.
 

Offline magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7454
  • Country: pl
I realize this could be a very short thread before it is locked.   I ask every participant to just review the facts which are accepted in the scientific community and not go to conspiracy sources.
There is a global conspiracy of climate scientists to make their work look more important that it actually is (it's not) by cherry picking data and drumming up doomsday hysteria.
By using climate science sources you are using conspiracy sources. Your whole logic is flawed.
 
The following users thanked this post: amyk, Galenbo, fable, Mr.B, Karel, Alex Nikitin, ELS122, Haenk

Offline RoGeorge

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7012
  • Country: ro
I don't understand.

Because you have been mind conditioned, and guilt-tripped based on cherry-picked information, such that now you take emotional damage when somebody begs to differ from the mainstream doctrine, and you take attitude based on propaganda only.  Maybe your guy (never heard of him) smelled bullish, that's why. 

CO2 is about politics and economic control, and taxes.  It's about money and power.  If you look at a different time scale, you'll find a different picture.  You'll find there is no scientific certitude (as mainstream media claims to be), and no hard evidence humans can influence climate, certainly not with CO2 taxes.

Climate "facts" and climate politics claim to be based on science, in reality they are based on ignorance, and on playing with people's emotions.

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9338
  • Country: fi
You say "I don't understand" but still appear to be so certain about him being wrong and some others being right. Why?

So a person whose expertise and opinions you trust says something that opposes your current worldview. Instead of getting interested in hearing out what he's saying, you basically treat him like he's dead to you, cancelled, to the point of you having to be "heartbroken". Why do you do this to yourself?

Science is NOT about finding consensus or "truth", never was, never will be. This is a lie by non-scientist. Science is all about the process: verifiability of the claims, unlimited discussion, even debate. A lot of modern-day research is of substandard quality and this affects climate research as well. It's very alarming if alternative viewpoints within scientific community are not allowed.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2023, 08:09:36 am by Siwastaja »
 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo, Tom45, Alex Nikitin, SiliconWizard, Nominal Animal, KaneTW, Ground_Loop, misa2

Offline wilfred

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1388
  • Country: au
I didn't know of John Clauser but in seeking some info on what this thread is about I found this Newsweek article which contained these quotes from JC
https://www.newsweek.com/nobel-prize-winner-who-doesnt-believe-climate-crisis-has-speech-canceled-1815020
"I don't believe there is a climate crisis," Clauser said during at Quantum Korea. "The world we live in today is filled with misinformation. It is up to each of you to serve as judges, distinguishing truth from falsehood based on accurate observations of phenomena."

According to the Co2 Coalition, Clauser made similar comments in the past, including: "In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world's large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science."

I am not more interested in reading about JC and his opinions on climate change. He is entitled to have opinions and isn't claiming more at least in those quotes. I think he is wrong but I am more convinced the reason behind these beliefs is money. Either he is paid to hold them or he hopes to be.
 

Offline eutectique

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 457
  • Country: be
why would a man with that history of achievement take such a position unless he really believed it to be the truth.

Because he has facts.
 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo, Alex Nikitin, Roehrenonkel, RAPo, BX

Offline jonovid

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1546
  • Country: au
    • JONOVID
IMO the computer modeling software based on the malthusianism theory is the problem.
how do you know the weather will be like in 50ys?
this is at the core of the global conspiracy of the so-called 98% of climate scientists. 
or the so-called climate doomsday panic in the corporate mass media.
science should be open to new evidence. not a closed case political dogma that can not be tested.
the science of climate cooling was popular in the 1960s. 
malthusianism theory is just that a theory, popular with the ideology of globalists.
Hobbyist with a basic knowledge of electronics
 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo

Offline .RC.

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 304
  • Country: au
I think at the end of the day what we think is not going to make a difference.

There are billions of people living in conditions that most here would not accept.   There people are more worried about their next meal then emissions. Whether we like it or not fossil fuels are a low technology way they can improve their lives.  First world countries may choose not to sell it to them, but plenty of other countries will sell it and it will get burned and the emissions will increase.

There is not enough copper in the world so everyone can have the same standard of living. Again so fossil fuels will continue to be burnt. Aluminium can be used for lower efficiency but it takes lots of energy to get clean metal from ore.

I think the majority of people in first world countries do live in a bubble world and do not tend to think too much.

Of course all this is but a simulation anyway, so there really is no such thing as emissions, or even planet earth for that matter, or other people.
 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo, ROT

Offline BrokenYugo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1214
  • Country: us
Like every scam and conspiracy theory (which are themselves often just cover for scams), there is a built in intelligence test to weed out those who will see through it. Being smart in one area does not make one moral, or smart in other areas, if anything it seems to go the other way, especially for the latter.

It's one of those things about society you just have to compartmentalize and ignore, or make your whole life about fighting it. Some people do nutty, degrading, things for money and attention, ignorance is celebrated, etc.
 

Offline tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8218
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
Lot's of mart people join these climate causes. Why? It might not even be because of the science.
Let's say you agree, that man made climate change is happening. Even then, the policies and the solutions provided today are moronic. They don't address the problem. They lead to a worse quality of life. They are downright malicious and nefarious, with some groups calling for the extermination of hundreds of millions of people, so called "depopulation" (I just threw up a bit).
My bank sent me a new card, from recycled plastic. Great, all that 10g plastic saved. The shop I buy food, replaced plastic packaging with plastic lined paper. It's worse in quality, often times opened already on the shelves, spoiled food, and impossible to recycle because it's a composite. They ban petrol cars, while a plug-in hybrid can save 90% of the petrol usage, and costs half as much. And they force electric cars, while spending 1/10th of the price of that isolating old buildings saving orders of magnitude more energy. It's all greenwashing, and the policies are made by idiots who are virtue signalling without actually solving the problem. Or even making it much worse.
Oh, and of course if you question all this than you are immediately a nazi.
 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo, bookaboo, KaneTW, ROT, RAPo

Offline tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 29813
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. Siglent Distributor NZ.
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
I don't understand.

Because you have been mind conditioned, and guilt-tripped based on cherry-picked information, such that now you take emotional damage when somebody begs to differ from the mainstream doctrine, and you take attitude based on propaganda only.  Maybe your guy (never heard of him) smelled bullish, that's why. 

CO2 is about politics and economic control, and taxes.  It's about money and power.  If you look at a different time scale, you'll find a different picture.  You'll find there is no scientific certitude (as mainstream media claims to be), and no hard evidence humans can influence climate, certainly not with CO2 taxes.

Climate "facts" and climate politics claim to be based on science, in reality they are based on ignorance, and on playing with people's emotions.
Really refreshing to know others can see straight through the BS.  :-+  :clap:
Avid Rabid Hobbyist.
Some stuff seen @ Siglent HQ cannot be shared.
 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo, Ground_Loop, RAPo

Offline snarkysparkyTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 419
  • Country: us
Well,  I didn't expect these answers.   I thought this group was more reasonable.

I guess i do buy into the BS.   CO2 warming is absolutely a thing.   And the occurrence of record extreme weather around the world just happens to be a coincidence?
I don't think so.

The group he has joined is clearly NOTHING but a political org that is attacking climate science not with actual science but propaganda.  Why is there no actual real science for them to use to persuade that there is no crisis.

That's all I have to say. 
 
The following users thanked this post: tom66, Sal Ammoniac, thm_w, DTJ, neil555, newbrain, ROT, Kim Christensen

Offline Bud

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7276
  • Country: ca
Amen.
Facebook-free life and Rigol-free shack.
 

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9338
  • Country: fi
Well,  I didn't expect these answers.   I thought this group was more reasonable.

So you keep repeating the same mistake. People you trust, some maybe for years of mutual understanding, and they disagree and give a different viewpoint on one matter. What do you choose to do:
1) stop for a moment. Think carefully. These people have been right before. Why they now say what they say? What do they think? Maybe they do have a point? Maybe the matter is indeed complicated and multi-faceted.
or
2) these people are all unreasonable! They have gone nuts, or maybe they always were full of BS! The mainstream media I follow, which lives off clicks, and the "scientific community" as reported through said media, must know better than these experts I personally trusted

And you choose 2. Why?
 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39026
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
I don't understand.  This man is an intellectual giant in the science community. He has aligned himself with the very unscientific group "co2coalition"
why would a man with that history of achievement take such a position unless he really believed it to be the truth.

I have no idea who this guy is or who that group is, but what I do know is that a lot of people lately (including those in the science fields) are getting rather sick and tied of all the extreme climate fear being shoved down everyone's throat, and having their lives impacted or potentially impacted whether they like it or not.
It is absolutely possible to "pro environment", "pro climate change" etc yet be "anti fear mongering"
And it's also a reasonable position to think that the climate is changing but that we can't really do much about it, and it's a better option to adapt to the changes than try and destroy everyones lives to meet some arbitrary "net zero" or other goal. or at least to discuss this stuff reasonably without being labelled like you seem to be doing here.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2023, 12:24:21 pm by EEVblog »
 

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9338
  • Country: fi
CO2 warming is absolutely a thing.

Who said otherwise? Some do, I know, but not everyone you are grouping together. A sane person can reach the conclusion that minimizing CO2 emissions would be an extremely good idea, without having to subscribe to the idea of there being a serious crisis including significant sea level rise, increase of climate-related deaths (while the opposite is actually true), loss of tillable land (we don't exactly know; there are absolutely no signs of this happening; odds are good the opposite will happen), etc.

The uncertainty factor in climate change alone, plus political instability of fossil fuels are reasons enough to minimize fossil fuel use. And reducing fossil fuel use for heating and transport purposes are the key points. We should concentrate on these two fully, and avoid getting sidetracked.

The thing is, while we concentrate on fear-mongering, we also concentrate on doing things that are ineffective in CO2 reduction, but cause mental stress and reduce our living standards.
 
The following users thanked this post: bookaboo, Squarewave, ROT

Online Bicurico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1816
  • Country: pt
    • VMA's Satellite Blog
The whole "green movement" is a scam and an idiologic stupidity.

It does not make any difference if we abolish petrol cars in Germany, in Europe or even in the whole western world...
It does not make any difference if we prohibit the use of a fireplace or carbon based heating in Europe...
...
This list could go on.

Any rational human will recognize that the carbon fingerprint of western societies is ridicule to the potential carbon fingerprint of the third world, once it starts having the same life quality as we have. What if every Indian or Chinese person has it's own car (like we western people have), it's own electronics (TV, phone, laptop, etc.) and eats a beef per day? And why wouldn't they be entitled to the same standards as we?

I am not denying climate changes, but:

1) The climate changes naturally on planet Earth. There have been ice ages and hot ages before humans.
2) The problem is not with "mother Earth": Earth will continue, no matter what,  it is the humans that may be unfit to live in an altered Earth.
3) The single most important issue, that nobody seems to want to acknoledge, is that there are already too many human beings on Earth! And the growth is exponential! We are 8 billion people now, soon we will be 10 billion. In 1950 we were just 2.5 billion people.

Why doesn't anyone speak about the population size? Easy:

1) We live in a world run by a huge pyramid scheme, where today's retirement plans are paid by the tomorrows tax payers. We need an increasing population to avoid the system to crash.
2) In order to pay interest rates, we need to grow the economy, so that more is produced and yesterday's loans can be paid with interest today.
3) The richer can only get richer if there are more people.

This cycle needs to be broken. Retirment should only be paid to the extend of what you have put aside. That money is to be invested in a secure way. But you should not receive more than your savings.

Interest rates need to be abolished.

Migration has to be stopped. We cannot compensate the lack of births in western countries by importing masses of people from third world countries.

This planet needs less people and every couple should have only one child. There, I said it.

Will it contribute to the population growing older? Yes it will.
How will we finance it? I don't care - people need to work until they die or make their own retirement plan.

What cannot continue is this exponential grow in population, that combined with increasing living standards will absorve more than this planet has to offer.

Offline rhb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3518
  • Country: us

I realize this could be a very short thread before it is locked.   I ask every participant to just review the facts which are accepted in the scientific community and not go to conspiracy sources.

I received an MS in geology.  The people who spend their entire lives studying the earth don't agree with AGW.  We simply got fed up with idiots who can't even do simple arithmetic.  BTW MS = Master of Science.  A "consensus" is not created by shouting down and insulting opposing views.  And some fool claiming a "consensus" is no different from their claiming the moon is made of green cheese.

Sea level has risen by ~600 ft in GoM in the last 15,0000 years.  Why don't you try converting to inches and dividing to get the average rise per year?  Then ask yourself a simple question.  Why aren't the port cities of ancient history completely flooded?  Do you think fossil fuels were being consumed 15,000 years ago?  By whom?

The earth is over 4 billion years old.  It is real, not a computer simulation.  AGW is just a poorly thought out simulation.  Arithmetic time again.  How much is 15,000 divided by 4 billion?    Can you identify *any* hit songs after listening to less than 1 millisecond?

I got banned for pointing out the same arithmetic several years ago.  Funny how the pro-AGW posters get a pass, but those with relevant education and experience are"conspiracy theorists".

Now you come along distressed that someone might have realized that AGW is complete BS replete with forged and altered data that has and is NEVER made public.  Real scientists provide the information needed to replicate the results.  If there is peer consensus, why are the data and computer codes not on gihub?

Because that would make it easy to *prove* the AGW fraud.

Reg
 
The following users thanked this post: Galenbo, Dr. Frank, Alex Nikitin, MarginallyStable, ROT, RAPo

Offline MrMobodies

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2028
  • Country: gb
I remember from one of Thunderf00ts videos a few years ago where he was speaking about climate change and something that "it is not the earth that is f*****" from an article he read somewhere but it's us humans and something else about it recovering but we will all be dead before it does.

« Last Edit: August 01, 2023, 02:28:18 pm by MrMobodies »
 

Offline rhb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3518
  • Country: us
I don't understand.  This man is an intellectual giant in the science community. He has aligned himself with the very unscientific group "co2coalition"

Co2 coalition has no credible challenge to anthropomorphic global warming.

why would a man with that history of achievement take such a position unless he really believed it to be the truth.

I realize this could be a very short thread before it is locked.   I ask every participant to just review the facts which are accepted in the scientific community and not go to conspiracy sources.

I've never heard of John Clauser.  If you consider him an "intellectual giant in the science community", why do you think he is wrong and you are right?  Why has he not caused you to examine and perhaps change *your* opinion.  What field of science are you in?

BTW There is no such thing as "the science community".  There are scientists.  They are human social animals.  They congregate in groups based upon shared interests.  Having a Nobel prize in physics is NOT proof of ANY knowledge of even basic intro geology any more than an MS in geology qualifies me as an expert biology.
 
The following users thanked this post: Siwastaja, BrokenYugo

Offline eugene

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 497
  • Country: us
why would a man with that history of achievement take such a position unless he really believed it to be the truth.

Because he has facts.

LOL! Even he never claimed to have facts.

EDIT: Science deniers are all "it's just a matter of opinion. Why can't you guys handle someone disagreeing with your opinion" And then one comes along that didn't get the memo.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2023, 03:41:56 pm by eugene »
90% of quoted statistics are fictional
 
The following users thanked this post: Kim Christensen

Online Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9338
  • Country: fi
Why aren't the port cities of ancient history completely flooded?

But laymen are easy to fool. Open your TV on National Geographic and you'll see them repeat a documentary about how Venice is sinking because of climate change. Somehow, given the same climate and seas, Finland is raising and we are getting more and more land. Now all you need to do is apply tiny bit of critical thinking: watching the same Natgeo documentary they show how Venice is built on a swamp and has always been sinking. So why they mention sea level rise when it's causing maybe a few % of that sink rate? It's the brain washing part, mixed with factual content about Venice, which is of course interesting and fun to watch.

Usually one doesn't even need to go far in "alternative sources", I mostly follow mainstream media because it's still not based on the principle of "full propaganda", but contains facts, just with built-in interpretations you don't have to agree with. Critical thinking is all that's needed.
 
The following users thanked this post: bookaboo


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf