As a retired physicist, I have seen this kind of behavior among my colleagues at the lunch table many times. Here's the logic: 1. Physicists have the most spectacularly and precisely verified understanding of our field in the history of humanity. 2. This proves that physicists are smarter than anybody else. (This is particularly true in my own case.) 3. Therefore, my opinions about any scientific or social issue have to be correct. 4. The people who work in the field under discussion, I have noticed, are not physicists. What could they possibly understand better than me? 5. Therefore, they are idiots and wrong. 6. I have a theory that I just made up, ignoring work done by the so-called professionals in (insert name of field here). 7. It has to be right - see above. QED
It ONLY matters what is done good or bad relative to the "climate". The eco-nazis have STOPPED the ONLY feasible CO2 reducing energy sources, nuclear/LNG. And employed utterly counter-productive Rube Goldberg's: ethanol/solar/wind/foreign oil. The 17 largest tanker ships produce more sulfur-dioxide than all the earth's autos. Eco-nazis have launched all of them to provide the US oil. IT'S ALL a SHIBBOLETH to pronounce our betters morally superior. L
Also applies to engineers and other scientifically minded people from what I've seen. I fear becoming victim to it myself. Hopefull that day never comes.
Apparently scientists are more prone to confirmation bias than the general population who usually know they are pretty dumb compared to a physicist for example (well, Reddit members excluded..lol). Makes even things like peer reviewing difficult as some of these guys just pat each other on the back for being so smart. As important as the scientific field is, it's important to remain humble.
I believe that it was Richard Hamming who noted the "Nobel Prize effect," that it seems to be common for Nobel laureates to think that they also have expertise in things totally unrelated to their prize-winning competency.
This guy's misreads the IPCC reports, how can he expect to be taken seriously. ( Nobel prize is no longer meaningful, Obama won the peace prize while bombing hell out of several countries )
Ridiculous. When politicians agree, it means the scientists have presented them with a mountain of empirical, convincing evidence that something needs to be done. Stop getting your "facts" from the internet's cesspool of conspiracy swill.
And I love Sabine, but it’s hilarious that she calls him out for not being a climate scientist when she’s not a climate scientist either and that’s the whole basis of her point come on Sabine we love you. You’re our kiss now see through the BS see through the money please take a harder look you’ll see it.
@@seanryan7672There is no conflict here. Clauser is not a climate scientist AND IT DOES NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST TO ASSERT THAT. I am not a climate scientist either, but when I hear him saying that input and output heat discrepancies change the rotation of the earth I realise there is something wrong
Of course climate change is real. Climate is changing since 4 billion years. Since the atmosphere came to be and there was a climate. Ever since then the climate was changing.
That's where I went from "You haven't seriously studied climate science have you?" to "How in the hell are you a physicist?!". Has he gone full conspiracy theorist and thinks the planet spins because of some solar powered machine run by mole people?
@therakshasan8547 or...small amount of brain... it is cheaper .... all people should use toothpaste from well established brands with added ingredients that can save every government money still to be able to work and pay taxes.
@aleksandartomic5515 in his case, very small brain. All scientists trained on the scientific method understand without a functional hypothesis validated by experiment, it's just an educated guess.
I can name quite a few climate predictions that later turned out to be wrong. Miami was supposed to be underwater by 2017, for example. It would be very helpful if you could name a few climate predictions that ended up being correct?
No climate scientist ever said Miami would be underwater by 2017. Check your memory and your fact-checking skills. Climate predictions that ended up being correct? These were all predicted over 40 years ago: CLIMATE CHANGE IS MAKING HURRICANES STRONGER, STUDY SAYS, The Weather Channel, May 31, 2024. ATLANTIC HURRICANES ARE GETTING STRONGER, FASTER, STUDY FINDS, NY TIMES, Oct 20, 2023. TROPICAL CYCLONES INTENSIFYING DUE TO WARMING ATMOSPHERE, Berkeley Lab, Aug 26, 2024 INCREASING TRENDS IN REGIONAL HEATWAVES, Nature, July 3, 2020 CLIMATE STUDY REVEALS ALARMING TRENDS IN HEATWAVE DYNAMICS, Utah State University, April 4, 2024. HEATWAVES ARE MOVING SLOWER AND STAYING LONGER, STUDY, NY Times, March 29, 2024. INCREASING FREQUENCY AND INTENSITY OF THE MOST EXTREME WILDFIRES ON EARTH, Nature, Jun 24, 2024. EXTREME WILDFIRE RISK HAS DOUBLED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS, CBS News, June 24, 2024. EXTREME WILDFIRES HAVE DOUBLED IN 2 DECADES, STUDY SAYS, NY TIMES, Jun 24, 2024 NATURAL DISASTERS HAVE NEARLY DOUBLED IN PAST 20 YEARS, UN, Earth.org, Oct 15, 2020. THE INCREASE IN EXTREME PRECIPITATION AND ITS PROPORTION OVER GLOBAL LAND, Journal of Hydrology, January 2024. PREPARE FOR MORE DOWNPOURS: HEAVY RAIN HAS INCREASED, July 10, 2019. SEVERITY OF DROUGHT AND HEATWAVE CROP LOSSES TRIPLED OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES IN EUROPE, Environmental Research Letters, Jun 10, 2021. CLIMATE CHANGE HAS DOUBLED THE FREQUENCY OF OCEAN HEATWAVES, Nature, Aug 15, 2018 THE RATE OF GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE DOUBLED DURING THE PAST THREE DECADES, Nature, Oct, 2024 WORLD'S GLACIERS MELTING FAR FASTER THAN PREDICTED, Boston College, Aug 2024 CLIMATE CHANGE BEHIND SHARP DROP IN SNOWPACK SINCE 1980S, Science Daily, Jan 10, 2024.
@@kitebarbie he is a director of the CO2 Coalition. you can find out who is funding him by looking for that organisation on websites like desmogblog. recent large donators were Koch industries and the Mercers.
Hearing Clauser talk reminds me of the mathematician Michael Atiyah. To explain, Atiyah was an incredibly accomplished mathematician throughout his life, but in his old age he began publishing some rather “crackpot” proofs. It was obvious that Atiyah’s mental capacity had significantly diminished and it was tragic. This video leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Yes, Clauser is wrong, but at the same time he is having significant difficulties even articulating himself. He is almost certainly undergoing significant mental decline and mocking him for it is cruel. At least in the mathematics community, the response to Atiyah was simply to avoid commenting on it and move on. This video is basically doing the complete opposite.
Reminds me of Linus Pauling's theory that vitamin C is good for what ails ya. He treated his wife's cancer with massive doses of vitamin C. She died. There are still "naturophathic oncologists" who peddle intravenous vitamin C infusions at $500/treatement, when vitamin C is dirt cheap and there is no reason to think that intravenous infusions are better than swallowing a handful of pills. A friend of a friend got sucked in. She died too. Hey, I have an Oxford doctorate in modern history, which makes me an expert on everything, because, you know, everything has a history.
@@JeffreyBenjaminWhite really? Cancers sometimes go into spontaneous remission, which the quacks can claim as a cure. If the lit were as persuasive as you say, it would be SOP in every hospital. But it ain't, because it isn't.
NOBEL WINNER CAN MAKE MISTAKES TOO AS HUMAN........... WHAT IMPORTANT IS WHAT WE GET TODAY.... GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE MAKING NEW RECORDS EVERY YEAR AND MORE PEOPLE DEAD BECAUSE OF THE EXTREME HEAT ARE ONLY WE BELIEVE THE "CLIMATE CHANGE, CLIMATE DAMAGE" NARRATIVE AS TRUE..
I'm happy to know that fluctuations in the sun's radiation should not be considered in the equation. It reminds me of college physics tests ... "without considering friction". Global warming... without considering the most significant influence on Earth's temperature...
Scientists always consider the sun. The sun's energy output, however, has actually weakened over the past four decades, according to NASA. But that's not all. If the sun was our villain, all layers of earth's atmosphere would be warming. Instead, only the lowest layer, the troposphere, is warming, while the layer above it, the stratosphere, is cooling. That's evidence of the heat being trapped below. The sun cannot do that. Only a greenhouse effect can do that. If the sun was our villain, earth would be warming most at the equator in the day time in summer. But it's not. It's warming most at the poles at night in winter. A greenhouse effect. Millions of years of proxy evidence establishes clearly that whenever CO2 rose in earth's past, global temperature rose with it. It's no different today. Only the source of the CO2 is different. Isotopic analysis of atmospheric molecules tell us that the fifty percent rise in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution was produced by human activity, primarily from combusted fossil fuels, not nature. Not volcanoes, not the ocean, not the biosphere. Combusted fossil fuels. It's not a coincidence that global temperature began to rise when our CO2 emissions did. Spectroscopic analysis of the atmosphere shows us more heat returning to earth at the wavelengths CO2 traps and less heat leaving earth at the wavelengths CO2 traps. A greenhouse effect. The long-term, periodic changes in earth's orbit, axial tilt and precession that alter where sunlight falls on the earth and therefore increase or decrease solar insolation (Milankovitch Cycles) are now in cooling phases, not warming ones. We are warming 20 times faster than is normal when earth emerges from a major cold period.
It is not only a matter of the variation of the sun's radiaton, it is also matter of it's distance to earth. The tilt angle of the earth axis may also play a role. It is changing or rotating by a few degrees. The whole thing is a complex system.
@@fortetudine Long-term, periodic changes in earth's orbit, axial tlt and precession (Milankovitch Cycles) can either increase or decrease solar insolation, causing either warm-ups or glaciations. These changes progress over tens of thousands of years and are all in COOLING phases now. They have nothing to do with today's warming. In fact, the earth began to cool fractionally starting about 6500 years ago, with temperature dropping 0.08C per thousand years (Kaufman et al, 2021) right up until the Industrial Revolution, when our emissions simply began to overwhelm nature's natural progression.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 I remember that there was a consensus among climatologists in the 70's that global temperatures were rapidly dropping. 20 years later there was a consensus that they could more accurately determine historical temperatures than the actual measurements that were taken at the time. Now global warming has been coupled with social inequalities, and part of the "solution" is to increase taxes. Here is what I know about global warming/climate change with certainty: - the scientific community did a literal 180 on the facts and conclusions over 20 years. - The most significant source of Earth's temperature has been ruled out as contributory. - Studies with contrary conclusions are outright dismissed, and the scientists involved are called names (second sentencein the video: he came out as a climate change denier) and shunned by the scientific community. - Nuclear energy, the most viable alternative to carbon energy, is not considered as an alternative energy source in the U.S., and many other countries are actually reducing their nuclear energy capacity. - Fear mongering, including threats of catastrophic events with timelines that have come and gone, is arguably the primary method to influence politicians and the public. - The proposed solutions, which many say is too little and too late to change the trajectory, include unprecedented societal changes and financial costs that are funded by coercion. Considering all of this, I am unapologetically skeptical of anything I am told on the topic.
The bad news is that China aint gonna stop building coal fired plants. Electric cars ain't gonna solve it as transportation is a small percentage of the problem. BUILD MORE NUCLEAR. Energy is life, energy does work. De-industrializing will not solve it. Poverty is NOT the solution.
Yeah he's not the first very smart person, or even Nobel winner, to decide he was smarter than everyone else and take a hilariously contrary position on this matter. I'm quite surprised people are _still_ doing it in 2022. It's pretty dumb at this point.
"Why are so many people driving the wrong way?" asks the curious front passenger. "It's because they are all incompetent and stupid.”, answers driver in the wrong lane.
@@torstenkaudt4793 _"Radio traffic news: Be careful there is a car driving in the wrong lane."_ Non-leftist liberal media outlet: Be careful, there is a serious liberal pathogen overtaking the USA with the spread being helped by CNN news where leftist liberal drink that Kool-Aid without question. Leftist Liberal: That is some of the best tasting Kool-Aid I've ever had.
this can be said about both extremes. In Germany the whole countryside is being destroyed by windmills, while they shut off fully functioning nuclear power plants
Only comments that agree with the ideology are aloud to be displayed... This should tell you everything you need to know about the state of scientific discussion in the world.
Our solution is money above all else. “Hey maybe if we keep letting rich people r*pe the earth for profit things will just get better somehow!” If the rich won’t police themselves there is no hope, and I don’t see them ever doing it unless they are threatened by global warming or something else.
As someone who is NOT a scientist of any sort, one thing I have noticed is that people are relying far too heavily on information which is far too recent to be very reliable. If climatologists do not include data from geologists, volcanologists, archeologists, etc., then their model cannot be considered to be at all accurate. The time span of collected data is much too short. Other areas of science included in any theories, should be those that study the movement of the earth around the sun over extended periods. It used to be thought that the earth spun around the sun in a perfect circle. This is now known to not be true. If the orbit is more elliptical, how much does that change over time? What impact, if any, do passing meteors, etc., have? How much impact on the climate do large earthquakes have, if they are affecting the earth's diameter? How much impact do volcanoes have, if several eruptions occur around the same time period? How much of this data is considered when coming up with climate data? If all of these variables are not being included, then no matter how you look at it, the climate models are incorrect. I have no doubt left out other occurrences which would also affect the data. One thing is very clear, however. A lot of people are making an awful lot of money out of the fear-mongering.
If it was just excess money the 'the sky is falling!!' proponents were making, we can recover from that. That is always happening somewhere most of the time. It's the damage that is being done/created by those who are actively controlling massive group behaviour, to whatever calculated end, that I worry about. That's the real danger.
And a lot of people are making a lot of money from the fossil fuel industry. A lot. And they fund global warming deniers in order to cause doubt in the public mind. There's actually a term for it, it's called 'public relations,' which is a polite term for propaganda.
I suggest that before stating that the data are far too recent to be reliable, you may want to dig deeper to understand the data and how they are interpreted. Asking questions is only the first step in problem solving. It’s very possible that they have already been answered.
Have you run any climate models or studied those that have been run thousands of times, perhaps more? Maybe do that before jumping to the conclusion you did.
Good for you, but the title of the graph does not SAY the temperature, and the temperature is what Dr Clauser is requesting. So that you can apply the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to it.
@@karolinahagegard It does, actually. 'Saying' the temperature = pointing you to the section of graph the title refers to that plots the (baseline) temperature in question. Which you can compare to the subsequent section of graph. Imagine that.
It reminds me of a reaction of my mother one day. There had been a trial and the jury needed several months of hearing the witnesses, the lawyers and the deliberation to determine whether the person was guilty or not. There was a report of it in the news on television, and based on this 30-second report, my mother concluded that the decision of the jury was wrong.
There seems to be a large chunk of the pre-internet population that still just inhales what traditional TV News claims; as being 100% “balanced and fair” reporting.
I am a simple man who did not finish high school. But I have been on this planet for 74 years and I have seen and felt the changes that have occurred over these years. For the past two years I have been recording American nightly news I can’t really remember of many broadcast that did not include some form of severe weather in the USA. They’re always seems to be a hurricane, multiple tornadoes, floods, extreme, cold, extreme heat, drought, and so on. it seems pretty obvious to me that the more densely populated and industrialized areas are getting hit harder and harder every year. But who am I, but a simple man?
Te number and severityof hurricanes has REDUCED in the past 100 years. That's official. You only hear about ot on the news so often because the media chooses to bombard you with alarmist crap
Whenever anyone gives a talk where they have a condescending attitude about how "dumb" everyone who disagrees with them is, I immediately tune it out. Thank you for sparing me from the torture of needing to sit through that talk.
18:55 We used to say "second-hand embarrassment" which means being ashamed on behalf of someone else, same as fremdschämen. Now people just say "cringe."
No, there is a difference. Cringe is for when you witness something that was uncomfortable to witness someone doing. Cringe doesn't imply empathy, secondhand embarrassment does.
@@stevencurtis7157 No. Some things do not feel good to witness. Not everyone laughs when they're uncomfortable. In fact most people don't find their own discomfort funny. It's not about being embarrassed for the person who did a thing, it's about feeling shame and embarrassment for your s e l f for having been in the situation where the thing occured. Hence, does not imply empathy.
@@Antleredangelbun Not laughing at your own embarrassment is consistent with my definition. I'm gonna chalk up the rest up to the word being overused to the point of uselessness. I'm not familiar with your usage.
“It is not famine, not earthquakes, not microbes, not cancer, but man himself who is man’s greatest danger to man. For the simple reason that there is no adequate protection against psychic epidemics, which are infinitely more devastating than the worst of natural causes.” - Carl Jung
@@werefeat0356 Fascism is an example. Communism is another one. Jung was twice proven right. More evidence is coming. Sorry, I forgot the Inquisition. One thousand years before the Inquisition there were the Christians destroying valuable things from the past. And then, later, Islam was invented rather close to us and, then, a lot of new forms of madness became very evident and extremely destructive.
@@werefeat0356 Yeah, it's all psychic. Typical of someone bred in a concrete jungle. Let me guess, you couldn't name the scientific name of a single tree, you've never grown anything on your own, you don't care to visit other places because you're obviously ameriken and too broke for that, and you live by what a screen tells you, instead of experience, citing people that neither you or your fellow countrymen ever understood. Righty?
As a former psychiatry worker, I have a lot of respect for Jung, great philosopher, but not always very scientific. Saying that maga is a psychic epidemic, for example, doesn't explain anything, and doesn't help. There are more useful explanations.
Linus Pauling also won a Nobel prize and also went on to spout a bunch on nonsense later on. Disappointing behavior: it's called "being Human". That's why is important for people to develop critical thinking. Keep at it Sabine!
It’s hard to develop a critical thought when unqualified and or uninformed …a lot of what goes on in the climate science industry revolves around lack of quality control, mismanagement, being uninformed, and being unqualified
"If we ignore the data, blind ourselves to the complexities, disregard the petabytes of measurement data, brush off the work of thousands of specialist scientists, but know what we want to hear, it is easy, even as an utter outsider, to find a fairytale that will irrefutably support our story."
It's easy to blind yourself to the complexities from both directions. It is indeed a very complex scientific problem, and gathering thousands of scientists and petabytes of data is no guarantee of being closer to solving it.
@@bangbangstabby2017 No. One side has decades of supporting evidence, from both private heavy GHG emission Corporations and the peer-reviewed scientific community. The other side has Clauser-types, and Public Figures & Politicians who are indebted to the heavy GHG emitting Corporations who are profiting Trillions of Dollars off of our combined inaction. The Climate Change deniers are the ones who have to provide extraordinary evidence to support their contrarian positions. Ones that go directly against the scientific theory supported by tens of thousands of scientists, in hundreds of separate disciplines, and with mountains of peer-reviewed data to support the overwhelming evidence of Human Caused Climate Change. Equating the 2 as equal is the same as giving *“The 1x1=2 hypothesis”* the same weight as the multi-discipline science we use every single day, to both be the backbone of our current technology, and how we have evolved as a race over the centuries to understand the Universe.
I've known too many people like this. He can only maintain that irritating smugness by ignoring any actual fact that contradicts him and by smearing the intelligence and/or character of anyone who speaks up to counter his claims. My sympathy to his family, he must be a constant embarrassment to them.
It can be hard to have such people in your family, I can attest. I can’t fully understand all the science to invalidate all the nonsense and unlikely scenarios, but with all the contradictions and limited knowledge how climate deniers are also very smug about them being right, not just questioning but ignoring peer reviewed science as if 99% of scientist are in the pocket of big oil etc, while the science isn’t in favour of big oil at all.
Absolutely they are in their pockets. You can experience that by trying to get some funds to generate some research in the 1%-research. IT IS nearly not possible. The best sign that there IS something going on in the wrong direction.. Trust science IS Not working any langer.
It seems to be more common recently. I recognize it in people who just disregard members of the opposite political party. Of course it doesn't help when the opposite party doubles down on being idiots.
New studies now reveal a great number of cataclysms and life ending events including dinausaur extinctions and ice ages were triggered by very large solar corona ejections.
And not even that, to an extent. It’s us who the current climate was ideal for who are in trouble, but if the worst comes to pass, and we aren’t here anymore the earth will likely recover and new life will replace the forms of life that have passed. (Likely without intelligent life because that ‘experiment’ has then failed)
Life on earth also doesn't have a problem...but many reasons to rejoice. The fossil record is quite clear, the warmer the planet, the more life and biodiversity on earth. 👍
Thank you! I make this point frequently. Our planet can handle this current situation; it's handled similar and much worse throughout its 4.5 billion years, and it's pretty arrogant to say that it needs saving.
Just another example of how we humans can be very smart in one way and very, very stupid in another way. It's remarkable how science has developed so much that scientists in one field are totally "clueless" about the science outside their own expertise.
He's not being unintelligent, he's using his considerable intelligence to construct a justification for his something he already believes to be true. All the intelligence in the world will not help you if you're not truly curious about the subject and are just trying to justify yourself.
Climate scientists are the leftovers of science, mainly physics. Until very recently, those departments received no money; they were the Cinderella of science. Today, they funnel billions. What is funny is that any scientist, and there are plenty, who disagrees with CO2-centered climate change is deemed stupid, has no clue, or is a big oil puppet
Ego makes you a charlatan. No matter how good you are, sooner or later, it happens. And you'll be committed to your bullshits, generating exponentially larger and larger bullshits.
I agree--- For your well-being, it is beneficial to acknowledge that human beings possess egos and finite minds. There are indeed scientists with significant egos, which can lead to substantial issues. While the claim regarding dishonest scientists may hold some merit-perhaps referring to incidents like Climategate-my view is that the scientists involved were transparent, though the controversy continues to cast a lingering shadow. Regarding your comments on mammatus clouds, I appreciate your insight, though it was not particularly useful for my purposes. Mammatus clouds, characterized by their sagging appearance, do not align with my preference for more defined forms. Consequently, my cloud watching will continue to rely on my imagination.
I mean why is a nobel winner going to deny a fact based climate change and he got a nobel on physics so is he pressured ? Or just to adjust himself in some political beliefs?
No kidding...how the hell did he get one to begin with? Just listening to him tells me to take ANYTHING he has to say has got to have a GIANT grain of salt with it. The personal incredulity is off the chart.
@@pawelparadysz My dad was that guy everyone would ring for help with stuff the way your generation uses Google. It was a huge shock when we started getting mumbled answers to questions we hadn't asked. It can happen to even smart people.
He started sounding like that right before getting a nobel prize. GGWP. And yes global warming is a myth. Now they are talking about ocean currents breaking which might lead to global cooling. And also you can look at every prediction alarmists have had and they were all and always wrong. Since the 50s - in 20 years polar bears will die, antarctic will melt away and so on. Bears are fine and sea levels didnt rise globally. They just rise in some places and get lower in other places. To further the propaganda they only report on places where sea levels had risen. But its not a big change, otherwise all rich people would not have bought their houses so close to the seas.
@@robertjsmith he seems to think he knows better than the experts in the field, that's Trump syndrome not Biden. But his talking ability isn't good which might be what you were noting?
Judge Clauser on this science not his demeanor, that is childish and unchristian . Some people have medical issues and stammer do we disregard them as scientists?
Whenever someone says something is very simple when everybody else struggles with it, it's probably not actually simple and the person who said that doesn't know what they're talking about
I don't disagree, but if you want to actually change minds, they need to answer the questions. Provide clear proof, if you just say you're a moron people will dig in, its human nature. Not saying its right, but combative responses rarely win in these cases.
@@CbSd994 It might be, but it is human nature. If you try to play like it isn't you will get no where. It like the media costantly attacking trump, they have made him the anti establishment thus promoting his popularity. If you just push people off call them dumb and laugh at their comments they will dig in and you will never change their mind.
@@TheJmac82 What facts and figures do you think would convince someone who has decided everyone else in the field is a liar? These folk haven't reasoned their way to their conclusion, they've picked a conclusion they want to believe and then cobbled together a random collection of assertions that they think prove it.
There's 2 (plus however many I'm not aware of) reasons why something is very simple when everybody else struggles with it: A. The person saying this is making shit up B. There's a strong bias in the group making them blind to the obvious solution eg. Darwin's analysis of natural evolution was a set of very simple observations (compared to many other theories of his time), but the bias in people back then due to religious reasons led to a blind spot.
I believe it was political commentator Kevin D Williamson who once wrote: "things are simple if you don't know a fu***ng thing about it". That seems to summarize much of what Clauser stated.
@@Bob_Adkins Not really. He dismissed the fact of our warming climate altogether, using a bunch of nonsense gobbledygook as a smokescreen to baffle people but make himself appear as if he knows what he's talking about (he doesn't) employing the authority conferred by his being a Nobel Laureate. There's a Nobel prize for literature. That wouldn't confer someone expertise in genetics or astrophysics.
Science learned about five years ago that many coral reef islands naturally rebuild their shores with sediment and broken coral after major storms. That finding has slowed the end date for many of these islands. But that hardly means that sea level rise isn't happening. The Maldives have lost almost all of their fresh water sources due to salt water intrusion, and they've been spending millions to aid nature in building up their islands with sediment dredged up from the sea floor, with technical help from MIT. High tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has jumped an astounding 400-1100% respectively since the year 2000. Maine, which is uplifting land from glacial rebound, is the last state we would expect to see have problems with flooding, yet last January a record high tide caused $100 million in damages. 8 coastal states are spending a combined $130 billion on new projects to hold back the rising tide. Not for shits and giggles, I assure you.
Alas, Venus's atmosphere is 90x denser than Earth's and is mostly CO2. Excellent for trapping heat. Cloud albedo is far less effective in deflecting sunlight in such a stew.
That's hilarious, you just stated Venus wasn't caused by humans.. thank you, you've finally grown a brain and researched all the false information climate change conspiracy theorists have come up with.
Actually there was recent string of publications that suggest the possibility of life on Venus due to the strongly suspected presence of phosphine and ammonia. If is of course not confirmed yet but still interesting.
The planet will be just fine. We are "only" killing some (insert high number) percentage of life on it, and not just human life. As soon as we are reduced in size/numbers and stop burning fuels like mad, life will begin recovering slowly.
This isnt 'normal'. Actually, what do I know? I dont think we are from space so what we do must be 'natural'. We are only behaving as the universe decided we should. Even though we think it is an abomination. This 'change' that we are creating absolves us from responsibility. We ARE creating a monsterpiece. At least u think it is normal. I am not sure.
It's the rate of change that's causing problems here. It's normal for a car's speed to change from 50mph to 0mph. It's not normal for a car's speed to change from 50mph to 0mph in 2 seconds, like in a crash
Sabine lists in this video many elements of Climate Science which she states are estimates or unknown, and yet maintains that human-caused climate change is irrefutable. Doesn't anyone find that odd? I also think that her patronising behaviour towards John F Clauser for challenging the science is unprofessional. It is as though Sabine feels that if someone challenges Climate Change then they are anti-science even though she admits that there are so many gaps and holes in the discipline.
Neither deniers or believers get you tube income from not taking an extreme position . Nor will the climate change industry pay you for admitting you don’t have a clue .The result is that both sides are putting bread on the table from the arguments.So it goes on and on .
I totally agree w/ you. She’s actually constructing a straw man herself. And all the scorn & rage in the comment seems more applicable to climate cultists. It’s laughable hearing Sabine defend the IPCC because they “admit” the problems w/ their methodology that cannot measure what it claims to measure. But we all know how this hustle works. It’s not science at all but the “scientism” we’ve all witnessed for years-the political process of indoctrinating and driving hysteria through the fallacy of authority & the media that pushes preordained narratives. Climate scientists have began to admit many of the problems they have-but fail to revise those mistakes, they simply add an asterisk. (Wow around 17:50 he makes this very point) It’s just bad faith for Sabine to defend the very behavior of these climate scientists that she excoriate this man for ostensibly taking part in. Eric Weinstein’s mixed (but kindly) opinions of Sabine prove prescient. How climate scientists finally admit their scientism but fail to revise or correct anything-simply add asterisks-deserves scorn & derision on a global scale. It seems a lot like Faucism. It’s hard to say if humanity distrusts public health officials more than “authoritative” climate scientists pushing hysteria & panic and a dark neo-eugenics over anthropogenic climate change-but both are arrogant w/ hubris and egos far exceeding their credibility (and I’d wager their contributions too).
It's clear that climate change deniers are doing so under the influence of capitalism. It's also clear that industrialisation & urbanisation has & continues to disrupt the wider ecosystem in ways that have never been seen in Earths history. The supply of fossil fuels is predicted last only 50-100 years, imagine the accumulated fossilised energy of Billions of years of earth's history being burned through within a few centuries. Why keep pretending that human development isn't radically reshaping the world around us?
Nobel awards are generally given many years after the noteworthy event. The 81 year old is lionized for his work in "...1972, working with Berkeley graduate student Stuart Freedman, he carried out the first experimental test of the CHSH-Bell's theorem predictions. This was the first experimental observation of a violation of a Bell inequality.[1][8] In 1974, working with Michael Horne, he first showed that a generalization of Bell's Theorem provides severe constraints for all local realistic theories of nature (a.k.a. objective local theories). ..." (Wikipedia) While we are grateful for his early contribution to quantum knowledge, he has proven he is unfit for purpose in both the current epoch and in this earth centric field.
You have proven nothing about the validity of his arguments. You've made up your mind on a topic you know almost nothing about, and anyone who contradicts it is automatically a bad guy in your view.
When he was doing his work in 1972 winning the Nobel, climate "scientists" were proclaiming we'd be in a new ice age today. He has spent his entire life being told "we only have 10 years or the world will end" and, no, he isn't dumb. The people listening to the alarmists, like you, are.
Work listed for 2022 Nobel Prize - "One of the most remarkable traits of quantum mechanics is that it allows two or more particles to exist in what is called an entangled state. What happens to one of the particles in an entangled pair determines what happens to the other particle, even if they are far apart. In 1972, John Clauser conducted groundbreaking experiments using entangled light particles, photons. This and other experiments confirm that quantum mechanics is correct and pave the way for quantum computers, quantum networks and quantum encrypted communication." So he is being recognized for work he did 50 YEARS AGO. I don't know what he has been working on the last HALF CENTURY but obviously it has NOT made him an expert on Climate Science. His Nobel has NOTHING to do with high variable numerical modeling or climate fieldwork and I doubt he has done anything since then to make him not just one more opinionated NON-expert on climate science. Obviously age is catching up with his powers of cognition sadly and DDP is slimy organization just willing to take advantage of his decaying mental aptitude.
It is, of course, ad hominem to point to Clauser's "decaying mental aptitiude". Nevertheless, the evidence for it is clearly there in his delivery of his paper.
Yet there are a many scientists, climate scientists who think it's a myth too. Most of them are older, retired or who's careers are not at risk. I'm glad there are people resisting the whole witch hunt nonsense by alarmists. Have you looked at the data? It's biased towards heat island effect data points. Rural temperatures haven't risen any more in the 20th century than they did in the 19th. Wreck our economies to the tune of $20 trillion for nothing. Thanks for that..
@@7ismersenneYou mean the evidence of his decay? Sorry, your text is not entirely clear as you could mean evidence in his talk on anti-warming stance. In my view, he comes across as arrogant and a poor speaker - not needed, irrelevant of having a medal on his fireplace. Oddly, I once attended a lecture by Blobel in Connecticut expecting him to talk about ER/protein bits and he embarrassingly spent 40min talking about architecture in Dresden. Irrelevant of his passions, I think he had dementia as it was entirely inappropriate - medals don’t mean brilliance or enlightened personality.
You are right 0.04% of the Atmosphere is Dreaded CO2.which means 99.96% is other gases including Oxygen..Nitrogen.. Plants need CO2 and would Die without it..i read The level has since dropped to 0.03% now
Understand the physics here. Atmospheric CO2 molecules act like crazed pinballs, constantly bouncing off other molecules and exchanging their heat (absorbed from longwave radiation rising up from the earth) in all directions, including back toward earth. CO2 doesn't need to cover every micron of air to create a greenhouse effect because the heat they exchange fills the gaps between molecules. Think of how a single drop of ink can permeate an entire glass of water with color. Diffusion spreads color everywhere the same way heat spreads throughout the atmosphere. The blanket on your bed represents a fraction of the atmosphere in your bedroom yet manages to trap your body heat quite well. You don't need blankets piled bed to ceiling to keep you warm, right?
@@1pixman Beware of fossil fuel industry scare stories. For the 800,000 years leading up to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 never got above 300ppm and at one point dropped as low as 170ppm. Mostly it hovered around 250ppm. The planet didn't die. This is when megafauna like mammoths and mastadons thrived and human evolved. In order to reduce CO2 to dangerous levels, we'd have to first shut off all of the world's volcanoes. Not possible. We'd have to prevent all wildfires. Ditto. Most formidable, we'd have to stop trillions of organisms from dying and decaying every year. That's not going to happen.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481But isn't his point about the "extra" CO2 created by man having a negligable effect? In your example the blanket on the bed is the natural situation, if you add a handkerchief on top of the blanket you won't be noticeably any warmer.
Boy is that ever the truth. But don't forget that it is true across the ideological spectrum and since the vast majority of PhDs are on one end of the spectrum, it is there that the D-K effect is most prevalent.
Nobody suppresses DEBATE like the IPCC, who annointed themselves the god of climate. Nothing like having a China and G77-dominated organization (the UN) being at the heart of current "science" while partnering with the world bank, IMF etc to push for about 5 trillion to 'fix" the problem.
@@reshpeck Not sure you could show that to be empirically true, there are masses of people who think they know everything who prove they know nothing by opening their mouth. The problem with Ph.D's are that they do know something, they just think their ability at one thing translates across any subject matter. There are plenty of both Ph.D's and those without degrees that can speak intelligently on many topics, it is when extreme ideology contorts ones logic that you get people spouting fallacies.
A doctorate doesn't either. It means (in my experience) insanely deep knowledge in one VERY narrow band of things. There are no renaissance men out there, knowledge is too big. It's a very difficult problem to counterbalance a democratic leaning society (meaning that everyone gets a say in some way on most big issues; where most of the world's governments are to some degree) with the fact that our knowledge is so vast and so deep now that even mastering a single field is VERY hard to accomplish for anyone in a lifetime unless you have a pretty shallow definition of mastery(because they're all expanding as you go). I have no idea how we square that either.
Sometimes Nobel Laureates are proven to be not so smart-and not promulgating anything beneficial to humanity. Case in point: the doctor who developed the lobotomy procedure.
There is a Trillion pictures per second camera on youtube why don't they use it for climate change? I'm not denying climate change I just feel we aren't certain enough The camera makes light look like a snail however if modified to go slower what would we see for different problems in science? So if the camera is real why not use it too?
Sabine herself isn’t an expert on climate science… so who is she to say the guy is wrong? She is telling the guy to stay in his lane while she isn’t even in hers… 😂
Please don’t quit. I have to believe, just based on my reactions while listening, that you treat this as a labor of love, and I’m glad I’m part of the humanity for whom you are doing this stuff. ❤ I’m also sorry that the mess needs cleaning up. 😢 That’s a very long way ‘round to saying thank you. But just “thanks” doesn’t nearly cover it! Logical thought brings us to the observation that the validity of an idea does NOT come from the SOURCE of the idea. Sadly, we all find ourselves ignorant of an issue at hand now and then. There are jokes to make this point, but you know… It was nice of you to take grandpa at face value. I am happy to bet that the prize must surely have gone to his head, and now he’s milking his fifteen minutes of fame. (I would too.) Just like old athletes, who come out of retirement for one appearance and make more money in that one appearance than they made in their entire careers, back in the day! Much more entertaining with your reactions! 😵💫🤦♂️ My last thought (no applause!) is that the morons at that conference in Texas will also be too dumb to migrate with the rest of us. Maybe they’ll contribute part of a jaw to a far future archeologist! 👍 They’re sure not contributing anything while they’re alive.
@@SabineHossenfelder10:50 i can't defend this lol 😂 i usually try to defend but this is just ridiculous and i know $1×$1=$1²=$2 and this makes no sense to me... spinning up the rotation of the earth lol 😂
@@AstroGremlinAmericanyeah, pretty much "stay in your lane." I understand and it's an appropriate sentiment here, but there's too many examples where the consensus was wrong for me to casually throw around such terms. But so long as we are permitted to debate with crazy ideas, we have the opportunity to find the truth of any matter.
That is an absolutely absurd statement. Its why we are in this mess in the first place because midwits actually believe such a thing that you should only talk on what a piece of paper claims you have been trained in. That is how we get brainwashing.
Well.. this is just sad! An old man that many years ago did something great, but sadly thinks that that automatically is applicable to a completely different field 50 years later... Why is this phenomena so common ?..
@@robberlin2230 Yes, how new, that climate science is not exact science. The question is, will we take the risk? We never would in our personal daily life, but we do it for whole humanity.
It is really strange that he doesn't see that the problem is not that simple. Everyone with a basic understanding of physics can come up with simple balance equation like he puts on the board, but as soon as you put clouds into it, arctic albedo, long-cycles that are responsible for ice ages and warm periods, it becomes clear that this is much much harder than what you can put onto the board and that is basically unsolvable without resorting to supercomputer calculations.
Plus all the local unknowns and the ton of accidental and deliberate false data. Which all makes modelling as a tool to understand the actual situation highly inadequate and it is the reason why this modeling should never drive policy. There is a reason why all the doom predictions never come true, all of the above. But here we are, in a time where policy drives the science and the science is totally corrupted by special interests. Anyone that does not sing the official "we are all going to fry, so do as we say" song is relentlessly attacked by the likes of Sabine and other doomsday cult believers. Taking cheap shots at an aging man that is not panicking as ordered is not debunking anything, it's just pathetic IMO. The limits of climate modeling are very real, even the weather is hard to get exactly right or even improve upon with more computing power. More input does not improve the results, more computers also does not. It's a chaotic system and the limits of making long term accurate predictions for that are very real. Mitigation strategies are the way to go, and they can focus on real and local effects, instead of assumed global effects. So far the policies are less than useless, they damage everyone and solve nothing.
The fact that he openly says in the talk that scientists are "dishonest" immediately is a red flag. If your theory is really true, then the evidence would speak for itself, you wouldn't need to trash other people in your talk.
@@Rik77 He is not wrong on that, examples abound that do not pass even a smell test. Manipulating definitions, historical data and selectively discarding data are all part of the deceit. And independent of this, if you still trust scientists on their title and blue eyes after Coved, then you are lost, unable to even discus this topic.
I know this is a really big ask, but can you climate scientists get JUST ONE prediction right? For the past 30 years we've been bombarded with countless doomsday scenarios and not one of them came even remotely close to happening. Just once, try to look as if you know what you're doing.
Thought she was an expert viro-immuno-epidemiologist 🤔 “Unvaccinated are a danger to themselves and others. Of course, they should not have the same rights and freedoms as vaccinated people. Anyone who intentionally puts others in danger has to live with the consequences.” Sabine Hossenfelder, 2021
@@lucar.923 and that was a solid statement at that time. Now, Sabine credited the people aiding her in the making of this video, admitting meteorology is not her field of expertise. What is the point you are trying to make?
Which one did they get wrong? Most doomsday scenarios are playing out but they take time to happen. How about we act on what we see on at least partially correct theories instead of waiting for full doom and gloom, then admitting to the scientists "Hey, you know, you were like, pretty much spot on with the droughts, lost harvests, disappearing drinking water, rising of the sea levels ... !! Maybe we should do something about it".
And any time open minded review of why a Nobel prize winner who applied scientific analysis to come to his conclusion can not be tolerated … be aware. When open minded scientific method is replaced with public shaming of the Nobel prize winner … be very aware. When paid influencers promote close minded emotional rejection designed to shut down serious consideration of the science … be very aware
There is no consensus??? What about 2+2=4 ; the Earth is not flat, it is shaped like a sphere ; the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.... The concept of "scientific consensus" does exist, and fortunately so! There are millions of scientific discoveries that are a consensus within the scientific community, and like it or not there is a consensus on anthropic climate change. When a scientist thinks that on a specific point the consensus must be contradicted (and therefore that the scientific community, after contradictory debate, evolves towards a new scientific consensus different from the first), he must do so with reliable, solid scientific elements recognized by peers. This is NOT what Clauser does,, here as demonstrated by Sabine, he is bullshitting. Evidence of the consensus on anthropic climate change, this study: "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature", Mark Lynas et al.
There are consensuses on many, if not most things in science. After all, you agree that 1+1=2 and that an apple falling from a tree has something to do with gravity, right?
@CD-kg9by You see, you just made my point, you want my consensus without testing your claim. That's not how science works. In other words, you want me to accept your outcome as fact instead of presenting it as your outcome that should be tested and verified by me. This goes to my point, stop presenting things as facts. Especially things like global warming (climate change phrase is idiotic, as the climate is always changing by its very definition and was used for political reasons). So to answer your question, I do not know if 1+1=2, but I accept this mathematical statement as true because I am satisfied with my limited testing results. Any "scientist" who says it's true is exactly the person for which I am speaking. You asked me if I believe 1+1=2, science isn't about my beliefs, that's religion. Science should always be presented as findings. Edit: which is why there are no consensus in science.
@@garywildgoose767 You really don’t understand the concept of scientific consensus. You state « I do not know if 1+1=2, but I accept this mathematical statement as true because I am satisfied with my limited testing results. ». So you imply that you accept scientific statements only if you are able to test them YOURSELF. Are you kidding ?? There are thousands of scientific facts (on which there is a scientific consensus) that you accept, as all of us. And this for a very good reason : nobody has the ability and not even the time to check each and every of them. Science is indeed made of findings and when these findings converge from thousands of scientific studies the findings become a consensus. And on this consensus science builds up new knowledge. If you read a scientific paper you can find a long list of publications attached to it, these are the findings on what the new study is built on. And the scientist making this new study borrows data and conclusions from other works. The scientist does NOT redo all the tests and studies described in these references ! (except if the work is precisely to recheck a former paper, it goes without saying). That’s how science does work.
It's always dangerous for someone to pontificate outside their wheelhouse. If you think you might be able to contribute to an expertise outside your own, work with someone in that other area to see if you actually can contribute.
I think it is awesome to have a huge market of random, creative and different ideas. But any perspective is open to debate and smart people can confidently articulate their complex perspectives. But, it should all be open to reply and discussion, and Nobel lareats have earned their respect, but they should also know that they can lose that respect. This rebuttal is amazing. It may feel like an attack but it's just showing his mistakes.
there also a contra-indicators to this work-flow.. for example A Wegener and the continental drift thesis. Personally I think social 'sciences' are the most ripe for disruption by 'outside' thinkers, as I found that they do not link up to the other sciences and take what they have figured out about reality as foundation to work from. It's rather disjointed. They use maths / statistics and whatnot.. but otherwise, no connection whatsoever.
"speed up the rotation rate of Earth" ... now I have to wipe coffee spray from my monitor and keyboard once more while contemplating whether that claim is clever way beyond my pay grade, or simply dumb. To speed up the rotation we need to get mass closer to the axis. Like building large dams at high latitudes. Or have more ice build up at the poles. We do have a little of that in Antarctica, but not in the northern hemisphere were we are loosing glaciers and have a shrinking pole cap. So at my pay grade of a graduated electric engineer & computer scientist I tend towards "simply dumb". Now continuing to watch after having a clean screen again ...
"To speed up the rotation we need to get mass closer to the axis" Or simply add rotational energy. Since "climate change" is said to be *slowing down* the rotation of Earth, obviously there's a connection. www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-funded-studies-explain-how-climate-is-changing-earths-rotation
As an astrophysicist, I approve of your answer. One can btw also do it by accreting mass the right way, or by tidal effects. The drag of the moon actually slows us down over time very slowly...
≈1m37s: "The light that hits the surface is converted to infrared; that gets partly trapped by carbon dioxide, which keeps our planet warm." Actually, the bulk of the trapped infrared gets trapped by water vapor, not carbon dioxide, a significantly weaker greenhouse gas. Fred
Water vapor is globally stable in our atmosphere, while CO2 increased suddendly since 10th century by +50%. And such excessof one GHG warms the planet. Simple.
Technically correct (the best kind of correct), but water vapour doesn't increase unless temperature increases. So while gaseous H2O is the primary effective agent, CO2 is still the reason for it. Same thing goes with things like albido (CO2 causes warming, therefore causing melting snow and ice, which lowers the albido of the surface of the planet). While CO2 isn't always the direct cause of the warming, all the roads that do lead to CO2 eventually.
true, which is why the phrase "partly trapped" was used. The scale of the difference in surface temperature is tiny, it's just that we are very sensitive to it. The real percentage change in temperature, which is what we are talking about, is 1.1 degrees in 298 for a 25 degree centigrade local temperature. Just a 0.4% change in the insulating effect of the atmosphere. Not so much now is it.
You can’t insulate anything with 400 ppm co2. Global warming is natural, and feeds on itself by warming oceans and increasing clouds. We are in a natural cycle. Where is the mathematical proofs for co2 causing the warming climate?
i would like a video on the earth sun cycle and how it impacts climate over 30-40 thousand year cycles and have it compared to the effect humans have with the effect the sun earth cycle has removed
@@cwpv2477 I don’t know of a specific UA-cam video, but I have heard of Milankovitch cycles. While they are responsible for a lot of climate change in the past, they are far too slow to explain current trends. Their climate conditions take thousands of years, not decades, to manifest.
It’s not about science, it’s about money. He’s part of a think tank funded by Petroleum companies(one of the key people in it was a CEO as well). These were the same people who also denied that the Ozone hole existed back in the day. Oil companies are funding these ‘non profit’ climate denier think tanks nd trying to get any scientist in who will take a paycheque for it.
Really? I get that vibe from anyone that says "denier." No one who has ever said humans are causing climate change and that we have to act now has given me a sense that they are speaking in good faith.
Sabine, you have to admit.. when they put the temperature measure devices in parking lots like i see here near where i worked, they are lying. He does something outside the usual frame of reference.
CDN also showed a great statistic of how they also conveniently removed a number of them in areas that didn’t help them build there dooms day predictions
Just like when Michael Attiyah claimed to have proven the Riemann hypothesis, here's another example of an old scientist that did some really cool and important stuff, but is now going batty and doesn't have enough young friends to tell him "bro, you're going to embarrass yourself, don't give this talk"
This person has made such glaring mistakes that it brings the question of whether or not he's even a reputable scientist to begin with. I've delt with too many "geniuses" that were sucking on the work of students and junior researchers. When you come out attacking an entire field over a very important topic, your character is not to be spared, especially coming from an authority figure.
@@Volkbrecht Except you aren't trying to come up with evidence to support your hypothesis. You're looking at the evidence to see whether it does or doesn't support your hypothesis. You wouldn't treat it as a conclusion from the outset, like this guy did.
When I listened to him I heard a man with dementia. It must be that, because some of his "ideas" sounded terribly wrong to me, even crazy, and I have just a Bachelor's degree in physics.
If you ever heard someone with actual dementia, it's off the scale compared to Mr. Clauser. Either he's a prime example of DK effect, or money changed hands.
Hamming believed the motivation for his "Nobel Prize effect" was a yearning to remain relevant, given that the work upon which a Nobel is based sometimes precede the Prize by half a lifetime or more. This appears to be the situation in Clauser's case.
Amusing that at 2:47, Sabine's example disproves CO2 as the source of global warming, then goes on to continually give conflicting views e.g. Clauser talks about not knowing what THE baseline is, so she comments that for one particular graph an arbitrary baseline is given - but if the baselines change from graph to graph and not all of them always define them, then there is no single baseline to be THE baseline. It's like saying the tap water temperature is up by 2C, then 3C but having different baselines for each measure in order to support the idea the temperature is increasing. If the baseline is taken from the 1930s, temperatures are down. If the baseline is taken from the mini ice age, temperatures are up. Changing reference points and baselines enables a person to asset whatever narrative they choose.
Different baselines will depend on the context, on what information you are showing. Nothing unexpected with such a complex matter with multiple aspects to consider. Yet scientists don't have any trouble understanding the given baselines and they still come to the same core conclusions. The problem here is why we wouldn't trust the vast majority of the experts (working daily on the topic I mean) over a handful of scientists (and a lot of amateurs) who happen to "have a look" and disagree with what their specialized colleagues established. We can wish scientists were better communicators and didn't confused us with different baselines. But you can't blame them for not talking at layman's level in their scientific publications. Plus, in publications like the IPCC reports, there are not only graphics with different data and baselines. They actually describe and explain the shit. Over thousands of pages.. Anyway, again the question is why some people distrust this gigantic community of experts, and the answer is not in the data they use..
@@oberric2388 The major issue with baselines is that they are picked to prove whatever the author wants. As I pointed out, you can prove temperatures are either rising or falling depending on from which year or century you take your data. Temperatures are down if you take your reference point as the 1930s or the mediaeval warm period a thousand years ago, or the neoproterozoic 600 million years ago, but temperature is up if you take it from the 1960s, the mini ice-age 200 years ago or the last ice age 12,000 years ago. As for distrust? Well, the various scandals we've had include: - Vice President Al Gore defunding research that didn't align to his environmental goals (1992-2000) - The EU providing environmental funding larger than "big pharma" could during the 1990s . I was in academia at the time, and when you have pharmaceutical research teams switching to more lucrative environmental projects, and quantum mechanics research teams suddenly doing environmental research, you have to worry about both the quality of the research and the monetary incentive - Nature and other journals' editorial teams admitting in 1997 that they were choosing to publish papers that supported the climate change narrative over those which did not - The IPCC scandal of the late 90s and early 2000s where much of the data was found to be fake and interviews with the publishers showed they were worried about losing their jobs as the data didn't support the narrative - The Canadian courts finding Michael Mann's "hockey stick" chart was false and unsupported by evidence after he attempted to sue Tim Ball for libel in 2011.
@@GA-lf2uh Well, I really disagree with your assessment on the scientific claims or functionning. "The major issue with baselines is that they are picked to prove whatever the author wants". I get your point but I just don't see that it's actually happening here. When a scientist pick a baseline just to make their point look better, the others see it because that's an easy thing to pick up and pretty much insulting. So when we talk about one a the most studied topic on this planet, it would be absurd to believe that the main scientific positions largely held today could be based on dishonestly tuned baselines in some graphs. Then you have to get the extra mile and pretend the main position is a lie known and actively perpetuated to the public by virtually the entire scientific community, which sounds very, very bold and unlikely to me. Again, we are considering the thousands of people from different countries, institutions, domains of expertise, backgrounds or even political preferences who work on multiple parts of this topic. I don't believe a minute the vast majority of them would agree to just blatantly lie or let the colleagues do it. Yes, it depends on what period we compare measurements to. But the data the scientists use and present supports what they conclude. Either you believe them or not, I don't think it's really a dispute on the presented scientific data. Yes, I understand that trust can be damaged by human behavior, "corporate culture", bad communication and all the political layers amidst. I just don't see that sufficiently present in the climate scientific community to the point that I would need to doubt the main global positions. And I definitely don't see it as being more present or problematic on this academic side than on the opposite questioning or denying side (where very visible political and economical interests are at play and should make us at least as critical to their expressed skepticism). But we won't simply agree here and that's ok. Thank you very much for the detailed response anyway! I respond hereafter to the elements you provided : "Temperatures are down if you take your reference point as the 1930's or the medieval warm period." I don't think that this agrees with what we know of the global mean temperatures of those periods today. Could you share a specific recent source describing that? About distrust : - Al Gore defunding : Can you point me to a specific example of that? By the way, you know there is and has been massive financial lobbying the other way around, right? Why trusting the denialist? - Academic funding/monetary incentive : Are you pretending that academic research only get to conclusions that please funders (i.e. politics in that case)? If public research fundings consistently dictate the scientific conclusions, then we can basically throw away most of scientific "knowledge", right? You don't do that, do you? Or just specifically concerning climate science? I know that academia is not perfect and pure, but your claim need to be backed up by extensive proofs that the science is voluntarily and massively manipulated. But again, you know that climate denialism or "controversial researches" are also financed, right? Why would we trust them more? - The IPCC scandal "where much of the data was found to be fake" : "much of the data", seriously? Do you really believe thousands of people in the world are still working with those fake data just so? Do you think they go to work and play with digits on their computer, faking research all year long because they would all lose their job for pointing inconsistency? Again, I get that there are political and personal pressure in academia (as there are in and on the IPCC of course), but in which academic field had you to work were finding something knew or problematic would basically be forbidden? I read about the "Climategate" so to say, about the internal mails and accusations of manipulation. I also read the explanations and what it was about. There may still be disagreement on the way things should be presented but for me it leads in no way to conclude "much of the data was found to be fake", that's not what happened and does not reflect the validity or acceptation of the main data and main claims of the scientific community today. - The unsupported hockey stick chart : Are you saying you distrust scientific experts because one of them lost a libel case about what someone said of one chart? Since when does a court say what is correct science? A libel case has never been a way to determine science and I don't care if Michael Mann was legitimately angry or had soft skin or whatever. Wikipedia has an extensive article on this chart with dozens of references to document the controversies and the works which essentially still support today what the chart pointed. Again, it would be far too simplistic to just point something imperfect in science communication to distrust the entire body of knowledge on the subject.
‘Narcissistically ignorant’. Interesting ad hominem attack. Why is he a narcissist? Why are you qualified to know this? I suppose it takes one to know one…
@@manoo422 Did you need an explanation of the difference between your local weather and the climate? They covered this in school surely - did you go to school in the USA?
A few years ago a monsterous volcanic explosion north of Tonga caused increased cloud cover and rainfall in the southern hemisphere resulting in colder weather
Really? Try reading about volcanoes. Volcanic eruptions spew all sorts of material other than water vapor into the air. Thus the clouds that are formed are not the same as normal clouds. This is why planes cannot fly in an area which has had a volcanic eruption. Yes, they are thicker and block sunlight and absolutely can make things cooler. As Sabine said in her video, there are many different types of clouds, even just talking about clouds formed from water vapor.
@@mattbosley3531 I hope you don’t teach people for a living. Try getting your point across without condescending and diminishing someone. You have a vindictive and nasty attitude. I feel sorry for the people that have to interact with you on a daily basis.
It's notable that Clauser, Happer and Judith Curry all kind of half-laugh during their rhetoric. I suppose they think it enhances the audience's belief in their narrative as the 'laughing' steers that audience to believe that all the world's climate experts are fools.
I've had an old teacher at my university and in his age, his thinking was... somehow slower. He just simply "read" his lectures, written by him many years before. But always when we approached him with additional questions, he began to laugh, tell stuff like "You don't understand these simple things? How would you then end the whole course?" etc. and in the end giving no answer to us :(. Just that "Clauser-like" laughter.
@@pavoladam4457 In denialist debunking circles we call this 'gone emeritus' - it refers to the tendency of some old semi-retired Professors to pontificate about areas of science they have little or no expertise in (or have lost their ability in) because their egos are so big that they think they know everything in all areas
When it's suggested a ball can roll up hill rules are not understood so a chuckle is in order much as any energy not following the gradient. We know the flow of electricity is reversed to explain the thermionic valve and transistor but even opposing theories are useful in explanations of a possible mechanism. Insistence on narrative without an explanation is illogical.
@@BrinJay-s4v Types like Clauser and Happer are NOT commenting on metaphorical 'suggestions that a ball can roll up hill'. They are constructing strawman arguments, that climate science never said, to knock down. Either they are being deceitful or gullible, having listened to denialist sources feeding them these misleading strawmen, or, frankly, because of their extreme age, they are no longer mentally sharp enough to realise their errors
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly some people are willing to sell their integrity! I'm guessing it's because they never had much concern about it from the beginning. Makes me wonder just how much of his Nobel Prize "work" was actually his and how much he stole from his graduate students. My guess is 5% his and the other 95% is his graduate students and colleagues.
I'm kind of wary of asking because I'm concerned that he might have some kind of Parkinsons or something, but yeah, he does sound like he just climbed a really steep flight of stairs, but for the whole speech.
I remember looking at the radiation spectrum of things oxygen has a peak which tends to regulate temperature, if it gets too hot oxygen radiates more heat and less hezt if it gets colder. Water does similar things but peak is more broad. Its so complicated i can never contribute, but my perspective is that what really happens instezd of all these doom and gloom predictions used to motivate people, make money, sell news and win elections. For example alot of land in artic and antartic is becoming habitable as treeline is advancing rapidly into the tundra. Crops yeilds are greatly increasing due to co2 and temperature. My point is global warming is good, band ugly, climate change happens we need to plan for it. Instead we run around like chicken little crying the sky is falling. I dont care if its man made or not.
Problem is, the polar regions shouldn't have trees growing there as the heat effect elsewhere will be terrible. Remember that over 90% of humanity lives in the sunbelt. And it's getting really hot here. Also,crops don't only need CO2 but water too. And that's drying up leading to crop loss. They also can't tolerate high temperatures, just look into what's happening with wineries in Italy and France. Messed up rain patterns are destroying crops in India leading to farmers committing suicide and very high food inflation. So think beyond your own bubble when it comes to the planet.
Crops use way less water at higher co2 levels actually. It's very common practice to crank them up to 2000ppm in greenhouses. And ppl in Africa starve mainly due to foreign intervention. What do you expect when you feed population that can't produce that level of food on their own. Populations naturally stabilise, when limiting factor was always food, what will happen if it's suddenly plentiful?
The most important greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor. I just can't stress how important increase in absolute humidity is regarding trapping more infrared radiation.
@@johnzach2057 No, it’s not THE most important one. It’s important, yes, but far less than CO2. Why? Water vapour does not continue to build up in the atmosphere in perpetuity, but cycles in and out of the atmosphere vi the Earth’s water cycle. Carbon, on the other hand, continues to build and increase the heat trapping qualities of the atmosphere and persists in the atmosphere from 100s to 1000s of years because the CO2 we’re adding exceeds Earth’s natural carbon cycle to draw down carbon as fast as we’re adding it.
I expect that the reason it doesn't come up is because it's a known factor that has been accounted for in the existing models, and does not explain the _increased_ temperature of the planet.
@@andreys7729 yes of course, and as the earth moves faster the friction against the atmosphere increases generating more heat which explains the increased number of forest fires. The increased turbulence also makes hurricanes and tornadoes more likely. I think we just solved it! /s shouldn't be necessary but I think it just might be...
Or, maybe he's at an age where he doesn't care what others think and aren't dependent on them for a pay cheque (likely lives on pensions). It's amazing what you can say when you don't have to kowtow to somebody for a pay cheque.
I'm glad that you engage with these arguments, instead of simply brushing him off as crazy. When people refuse to engage with opposing points of view, it makes me worry that they aren't actually able to make a counterargument. I would say that the best way to defeat bad arguments is with better arguments.
In this case I agree with you in general I don't. It is impossible to get any meaningful arguments out if you are constantly forced to rebut made up stuff. In the end it is your responsibility to see through bad faith arguments not others responsibility to hold your hand so that you don't get lost. The problem with the strategy is that it can be exploited and it is very much exploited by bad faith actors. It is much easier and quicker to make stuff up than it is to rebut it. So by making up stuff that sounds believable at first glance you tie up your opponents resources by forcing them to counter argument your nonsense. That is modus operandi by many extreme far right organizations, one current example in the US is Trump and the Republican party. It is of course not uncommon in other contexts but that is probably the most obvious example that many should be able to relate to.
Dependence and correlation are the hardest concepts to get across. Along with the difference between a bias, which is NOT added in quadrature, and a random error, which IS added in quadrature.
Not the first time a Nobel Prize winner has been wrong. Linus Pauling won 2 noble prizes but was totally wrong about quasicrystals. From the day Shechtman published his findings on quasicrystals in 1984 to the day Linus Pauling died (1994), Shechtman experienced hostility from him toward the non-periodic interpretation.
There's also doctor António Egas Moniz. He won the 1949 prize as the inventor of the lobotomy. The Nobel prize doesn't guarantee perfection, or that the work to earn it will be looked at positively in the future.
quasicrystals -- now there's an obscure reference! Pauling also consumed prodigious quantities of Vitamin C each day. Amounts that would cause most people to expreience toxic side effects.
António Egas Moniz won the prize in 1949 for the loab 0t0my. UA-cam keeps removing my comments, I believe because of the word of the procedure for the prize. Let's see if this one doesn't get taken down
The biggest disaster is going to be people trying to to fix something when they don't know how it works. It's like grade schoolers trying to fix a nuclear reactor. "A little learning is a dangerous thing...."
The Milankovitch Cycles that drove global warming in earth's past are all in cooling phases now and have nothing to do with today's warming. There is no greater hubris than armchair PhDs who think they know more than actual PhDs.
He won a nobel prize by doing an experiment designed by another person. It wasn’t even accurate enough to be real proof. Nobel Prize awards are often not handed to the person who actually performed the creative process. So many examples.
As a retired physicist, I have seen this kind of behavior among my colleagues at the lunch table many times. Here's the logic:
1. Physicists have the most spectacularly and precisely verified understanding of our field in the history of humanity.
2. This proves that physicists are smarter than anybody else. (This is particularly true in my own case.)
3. Therefore, my opinions about any scientific or social issue have to be correct.
4. The people who work in the field under discussion, I have noticed, are not physicists. What could they possibly understand better than me?
5. Therefore, they are idiots and wrong.
6. I have a theory that I just made up, ignoring work done by the so-called professionals in (insert name of field here).
7. It has to be right - see above. QED
It ONLY matters what is done good or bad relative to the "climate".
The eco-nazis have STOPPED the ONLY feasible CO2 reducing energy sources, nuclear/LNG.
And employed utterly counter-productive Rube Goldberg's: ethanol/solar/wind/foreign oil.
The 17 largest tanker ships produce more sulfur-dioxide than all the earth's autos. Eco-nazis
have launched all of them to provide the US oil.
IT'S ALL a SHIBBOLETH to pronounce our betters morally superior. L
She credited the professionals sited at the end of her talk.
Also applies to engineers and other scientifically minded people from what I've seen.
I fear becoming victim to it myself. Hopefull that day never comes.
Apparently scientists are more prone to confirmation bias than the general population who usually know they are pretty dumb compared to a physicist for example (well, Reddit members excluded..lol). Makes even things like peer reviewing difficult as some of these guys just pat each other on the back for being so smart. As important as the scientific field is, it's important to remain humble.
@@SvenBoulangerLike the song says, “Always be humble and kind.”
I believe that it was Richard Hamming who noted the "Nobel Prize effect," that it seems to be common for Nobel laureates to think that they also have expertise in things totally unrelated to their prize-winning competency.
It's not limited to Nobel Prize winners. Anyone who is an expert on a subject can fall victim to that mindset.
Sabine certainly thinks she's an expert on climate and AI, and I got news for you... she isn't even an expert on physics.
He's a physicist, and your conjecture clearly proves you are out of your league.
Scientists do this all the time - it's hardly just Nobel laureates.
This guy's misreads the IPCC reports, how can he expect to be taken seriously. ( Nobel prize is no longer meaningful, Obama won the peace prize while bombing hell out of several countries )
When politicians and scientists agree, something is wrong, and it usually involves a lot of money
Ridiculous. When politicians agree, it means the scientists have presented them with a mountain of empirical, convincing evidence that something needs to be done. Stop getting your "facts" from the internet's cesspool of conspiracy swill.
or probably deceit
EXACTLY!
And I love Sabine, but it’s hilarious that she calls him out for not being a climate scientist when she’s not a climate scientist either and that’s the whole basis of her point come on Sabine we love you. You’re our kiss now see through the BS see through the money please take a harder look you’ll see it.
@@seanryan7672There is no conflict here. Clauser is not a climate scientist AND IT DOES NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST TO ASSERT THAT. I am not a climate scientist either, but when I hear him saying that input and output heat discrepancies change the rotation of the earth I realise there is something wrong
Ppl with more money than you can imagine dont want their business messed with.
Touche!!! Love this expression: "Just because geologist don't agree on earthquake predictions, it doesn't mean that plate tectonics don't exist"
Yes, I already assimilated it.
Of course climate change is real.
Climate is changing since 4 billion years. Since the atmosphere came to be and there was a climate.
Ever since then the climate was changing.
And just because climate scientist can't report accurate data doesn't mean they not reliable science
Plate tectonics were discovered by predicting earth quakes
Techonic plates were discovered by predicting earth quakes 😅
I legit burst out laughing at the suggestion that the extra energy went in the rotation of the earth. That doesnt even pass the sniff test.
Yes😅
"That doesnt even pass the sniff test."
Well, you could use scientific instruments or just sniff it.
It may seem unbelievable, but in fact it seems to be happening. Just in the opposite direction... Global warming seems to be causing a slowdown
That's where I went from "You haven't seriously studied climate science have you?" to "How in the hell are you a physicist?!". Has he gone full conspiracy theorist and thinks the planet spins because of some solar powered machine run by mole people?
It's an obvious "light mill" effect:
One side of the globe is black, the other is white...
then we apply basic physics...
Large amounts of money can change some people's mind on anything .
@@therakshasan8547 indeed. See: Merchants of Doubt. The $4 Trillion per year fossil fuel industry spend $ billions on denial.
@therakshasan8547 or...small amount of brain... it is cheaper .... all people should use toothpaste from well established brands with added ingredients that can save every government money still to be able to work and pay taxes.
@aleksandartomic5515 in his case, very small brain.
All scientists trained on the scientific method understand without a functional hypothesis validated by experiment, it's just an educated guess.
I think ideology has more influence than money. It's extremely powerful. It worms its way in and lives in your mind.
@@salsalzman2325: Yes, in theory. But when it applies to THEM, this thing called EGO gets in the way, for example.
I can name quite a few climate predictions that later turned out to be wrong. Miami was supposed to be underwater by 2017, for example. It would be very helpful if you could name a few climate predictions that ended up being correct?
No climate scientist ever said Miami would be underwater by 2017. Check your memory and your fact-checking skills.
Climate predictions that ended up being correct? These were all predicted over 40 years ago:
CLIMATE CHANGE IS MAKING HURRICANES STRONGER, STUDY SAYS, The Weather Channel, May 31, 2024.
ATLANTIC HURRICANES ARE GETTING STRONGER, FASTER, STUDY FINDS, NY TIMES, Oct 20, 2023.
TROPICAL CYCLONES INTENSIFYING DUE TO WARMING ATMOSPHERE, Berkeley Lab, Aug 26, 2024
INCREASING TRENDS IN REGIONAL HEATWAVES, Nature, July 3, 2020
CLIMATE STUDY REVEALS ALARMING TRENDS IN HEATWAVE DYNAMICS, Utah State University, April 4, 2024.
HEATWAVES ARE MOVING SLOWER AND STAYING LONGER, STUDY, NY Times, March 29, 2024.
INCREASING FREQUENCY AND INTENSITY OF THE MOST EXTREME WILDFIRES ON EARTH, Nature, Jun 24, 2024.
EXTREME WILDFIRE RISK HAS DOUBLED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS, CBS News, June 24, 2024.
EXTREME WILDFIRES HAVE DOUBLED IN 2 DECADES, STUDY SAYS, NY TIMES, Jun 24, 2024
NATURAL DISASTERS HAVE NEARLY DOUBLED IN PAST 20 YEARS, UN, Earth.org, Oct 15, 2020.
THE INCREASE IN EXTREME PRECIPITATION AND ITS PROPORTION OVER GLOBAL LAND, Journal of Hydrology, January 2024.
PREPARE FOR MORE DOWNPOURS: HEAVY RAIN HAS INCREASED, July 10, 2019.
SEVERITY OF DROUGHT AND HEATWAVE CROP LOSSES TRIPLED OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES IN EUROPE, Environmental Research Letters, Jun 10, 2021.
CLIMATE CHANGE HAS DOUBLED THE FREQUENCY OF OCEAN HEATWAVES, Nature, Aug 15, 2018
THE RATE OF GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE DOUBLED DURING THE PAST THREE DECADES, Nature, Oct, 2024
WORLD'S GLACIERS MELTING FAR FASTER THAN PREDICTED, Boston College, Aug 2024
CLIMATE CHANGE BEHIND SHARP DROP IN SNOWPACK SINCE 1980S, Science Daily, Jan 10, 2024.
They have gone very quiet 😅
Don't forget that Al Gore said the ice caps would melt by 2014.lmfao
Like almost, everyone one of them and it a lot of cases the exact opposite has happened. Al Gore was never right about anything.
Let's see your evidence.
"You might think the biggest energy sink on Earth is moral outrage on Twitter"
Stop talking and DEBATE me!
All talk no action. DEBATE ME!
Clauser is spot on. Terrific guy.
@@climatecraze he’s another fraud, like you, mere engineer
That was gold.
Sabine in the corner of the screen not saying anything somehow feels so much more condemning...
live Sabine reaction
these people terrify me… what is their motivation? I don’t get it. Just makes me disappointed in the Nobel committee…
@@kitebarbie fool gullible people and make them distrust science.
@@kitebarbie he is a director of the CO2 Coalition. you can find out who is funding him by looking for that organisation on websites like desmogblog. recent large donators were Koch industries and the Mercers.
Hearing Clauser talk reminds me of the mathematician Michael Atiyah. To explain, Atiyah was an incredibly accomplished mathematician throughout his life, but in his old age he began publishing some rather “crackpot” proofs. It was obvious that Atiyah’s mental capacity had significantly diminished and it was tragic.
This video leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Yes, Clauser is wrong, but at the same time he is having significant difficulties even articulating himself. He is almost certainly undergoing significant mental decline and mocking him for it is cruel.
At least in the mathematics community, the response to Atiyah was simply to avoid commenting on it and move on. This video is basically doing the complete opposite.
Reminds me of Linus Pauling's theory that vitamin C is good for what ails ya. He treated his wife's cancer with massive doses of vitamin C. She died. There are still "naturophathic oncologists" who peddle intravenous vitamin C infusions at $500/treatement, when vitamin C is dirt cheap and there is no reason to think that intravenous infusions are better than swallowing a handful of pills. A friend of a friend got sucked in. She died too. Hey, I have an Oxford doctorate in modern history, which makes me an expert on everything, because, you know, everything has a history.
Yes I was also thinking of Pauling and senile megalomania
lots of lit shows intra C without and before damaging chemo works for many if not all cancers. read more.
@@JeffreyBenjaminWhite really? Cancers sometimes go into spontaneous remission, which the quacks can claim as a cure. If the lit were as persuasive as you say, it would be SOP in every hospital. But it ain't, because it isn't.
@@JeffreyBenjaminWhite
Actual science papers or woo lit on the net?
NOBEL WINNER CAN MAKE MISTAKES TOO AS HUMAN........... WHAT IMPORTANT IS WHAT WE GET TODAY.... GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE MAKING NEW RECORDS EVERY YEAR AND MORE PEOPLE DEAD BECAUSE OF THE EXTREME HEAT ARE ONLY WE BELIEVE THE "CLIMATE CHANGE, CLIMATE DAMAGE" NARRATIVE AS TRUE..
I'm happy to know that fluctuations in the sun's radiation should not be considered in the equation. It reminds me of college physics tests ... "without considering friction". Global warming... without considering the most significant influence on Earth's temperature...
Scientists always consider the sun. The sun's energy output, however, has actually weakened over the past four decades, according to NASA. But that's not all.
If the sun was our villain, all layers of earth's atmosphere would be warming. Instead, only the lowest layer, the troposphere, is warming, while the layer above it, the stratosphere, is cooling. That's evidence of the heat being trapped below. The sun cannot do that. Only a greenhouse effect can do that.
If the sun was our villain, earth would be warming most at the equator in the day time in summer. But it's not. It's warming most at the poles at night in winter. A greenhouse effect.
Millions of years of proxy evidence establishes clearly that whenever CO2 rose in earth's past, global temperature rose with it. It's no different today. Only the source of the CO2 is different.
Isotopic analysis of atmospheric molecules tell us that the fifty percent rise in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution was produced by human activity, primarily from combusted fossil fuels, not nature. Not volcanoes, not the ocean, not the biosphere. Combusted fossil fuels. It's not a coincidence that global temperature began to rise when our CO2 emissions did.
Spectroscopic analysis of the atmosphere shows us more heat returning to earth at the wavelengths CO2 traps and less heat leaving earth at the wavelengths CO2 traps. A greenhouse effect.
The long-term, periodic changes in earth's orbit, axial tilt and precession that alter where sunlight falls on the earth and therefore increase or decrease solar insolation (Milankovitch Cycles) are now in cooling phases, not warming ones.
We are warming 20 times faster than is normal when earth emerges from a major cold period.
It is not only a matter of the variation of the sun's radiaton, it is also matter of it's distance to earth. The tilt angle of the earth axis may also play a role. It is changing or rotating by a few degrees. The whole thing is a complex system.
@@fortetudine Long-term, periodic changes in earth's orbit, axial tlt and precession (Milankovitch Cycles) can either increase or decrease solar insolation, causing either warm-ups or glaciations. These changes progress over tens of thousands of years and are all in COOLING phases now. They have nothing to do with today's warming. In fact, the earth began to cool fractionally starting about 6500 years ago, with temperature dropping 0.08C per thousand years (Kaufman et al, 2021) right up until the Industrial Revolution, when our emissions simply began to overwhelm nature's natural progression.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Would you agree if I say that all these effects overlay?
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 I remember that there was a consensus among climatologists in the 70's that global temperatures were rapidly dropping. 20 years later there was a consensus that they could more accurately determine historical temperatures than the actual measurements that were taken at the time. Now global warming has been coupled with social inequalities, and part of the "solution" is to increase taxes.
Here is what I know about global warming/climate change with certainty:
- the scientific community did a literal 180 on the facts and conclusions over 20 years.
- The most significant source of Earth's temperature has been ruled out as contributory.
- Studies with contrary conclusions are outright dismissed, and the scientists involved are called names (second sentencein the video: he came out as a climate change denier) and shunned by the scientific community.
- Nuclear energy, the most viable alternative to carbon energy, is not considered as an alternative energy source in the U.S., and many other countries are actually reducing their nuclear energy capacity.
- Fear mongering, including threats of catastrophic events with timelines that have come and gone, is arguably the primary method to influence politicians and the public.
- The proposed solutions, which many say is too little and too late to change the trajectory, include unprecedented societal changes and financial costs that are funded by coercion.
Considering all of this, I am unapologetically skeptical of anything I am told on the topic.
A lot of public stupidity seems to come from people successful in one field commenting on another.
The bad news is that China aint gonna stop building coal fired plants. Electric cars ain't gonna solve it as transportation is a small percentage of the problem. BUILD MORE NUCLEAR. Energy is life, energy does work. De-industrializing will not solve it. Poverty is NOT the solution.
Yeah he's not the first very smart person, or even Nobel winner, to decide he was smarter than everyone else and take a hilariously contrary position on this matter. I'm quite surprised people are _still_ doing it in 2022. It's pretty dumb at this point.
Perhaps we can call this the "Dawkins Effect".
Climate scientists are famous for doing that.
including sabine herself, unfortunately.
"Why are so many people driving the wrong way?" asks the curious front passenger.
"It's because they are all incompetent and stupid.”, answers driver in the wrong lane.
Radio traffic news: Be careful there is a car driving in the wrong lane.
Driver listening to the radio: One? Hundrets!
@@torstenkaudt4793 _"Radio traffic news: Be careful there is a car driving in the wrong lane."_
Non-leftist liberal media outlet: Be careful, there is a serious liberal pathogen overtaking the USA with the spread being helped by CNN news where leftist liberal drink that Kool-Aid without question.
Leftist Liberal: That is some of the best tasting Kool-Aid I've ever had.
this can be said about both extremes. In Germany the whole countryside is being destroyed by windmills, while they shut off fully functioning nuclear power plants
@@arjuna3234
1980s: Atomkraft? NEIN DANKE!
2020s: Kohlkraft? JA BITTE!
@@arjuna3234 Abandoning nuclear power - the safest, cleanest power we have - because they're scared of it, has been a fool's errand for Germany.
Climate change may not be a myth, but our solutions for it sure as hell seem to be.
The solutions are a myth because so many people think that the breakdown of climate is a myth.
Only comments that agree with the ideology are aloud to be displayed... This should tell you everything you need to know about the state of scientific discussion in the world.
...or conclusions...
Our solution is money above all else. “Hey maybe if we keep letting rich people r*pe the earth for profit things will just get better somehow!” If the rich won’t police themselves there is no hope, and I don’t see them ever doing it unless they are threatened by global warming or something else.
@@dougmicheals6037 So why is the above comment displayed?
As someone who is NOT a scientist of any sort, one thing I have noticed is that people are relying far too heavily on information which is far too recent to be very reliable. If climatologists do not include data from geologists, volcanologists, archeologists, etc., then their model cannot be considered to be at all accurate. The time span of collected data is much too short. Other areas of science included in any theories, should be those that study the movement of the earth around the sun over extended periods. It used to be thought that the earth spun around the sun in a perfect circle. This is now known to not be true. If the orbit is more elliptical, how much does that change over time? What impact, if any, do passing meteors, etc., have? How much impact on the climate do large earthquakes have, if they are affecting the earth's diameter? How much impact do volcanoes have, if several eruptions occur around the same time period? How much of this data is considered when coming up with climate data? If all of these variables are not being included, then no matter how you look at it, the climate models are incorrect. I have no doubt left out other occurrences which would also affect the data. One thing is very clear, however. A lot of people are making an awful lot of money out of the fear-mongering.
If it was just excess money the 'the sky is falling!!' proponents were making, we can recover from that. That is always happening somewhere most of the time. It's the damage that is being done/created by those who are actively controlling massive group behaviour, to whatever calculated end, that I worry about. That's the real danger.
And a lot of people are making a lot of money from the fossil fuel industry. A lot. And they fund global warming deniers in order to cause doubt in the public mind. There's actually a term for it, it's called 'public relations,' which is a polite term for propaganda.
I suggest that before stating that the data are far too recent to be reliable, you may want to dig deeper to understand the data and how they are interpreted. Asking questions is only the first step in problem solving. It’s very possible that they have already been answered.
Have you run any climate models or studied those that have been run thousands of times, perhaps more? Maybe do that before jumping to the conclusion you did.
@@chrisl7839 You can run the models a million times, it willl still be garbage in, garbage out
"Says man who can't read title of a graph" was vicious xD
ONE OF MY FAVOURITE PART'S.
SATT 👽.
Good for you, but the title of the graph does not SAY the temperature, and the temperature is what Dr Clauser is requesting. So that you can apply the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to it.
@@karolinahagegard It does, actually. 'Saying' the temperature = pointing you to the section of graph the title refers to that plots the (baseline) temperature in question. Which you can compare to the subsequent section of graph. Imagine that.
"Oceans- those are all the blue parts on the globe." Sabine, you kill me!
Yes, Sabine's comment sounded like something Kamala Harris would say, but without the laughing hyena sound.
@@pyro1813Presumably when she's addressing those "uneducated" masses whom Trump says he loves.
@@Longtack55
You mean like jamal trulove😂
@@pyro1813 So you think that was a constructive contribution to the conversation?
@@pyro1813 off you piss . People are taking.
It reminds me of a reaction of my mother one day. There had been a trial and the jury needed several months of hearing the witnesses, the lawyers and the deliberation to determine whether the person was guilty or not. There was a report of it in the news on television, and based on this 30-second report, my mother concluded that the decision of the jury was wrong.
Smart woman, your mother. Perhaps she grew up under Communism like me.
There seems to be a large chunk of the pre-internet population that still just inhales what traditional TV News claims; as being 100% “balanced and fair” reporting.
There seems to be a large chunk of post-Internet population that struggles to understand what is balanced and fair.
@@GoatPopsiclewhat trial was it. Maybe your mum was right.
@@Jeremy64444was it the OJ Simpson trial? Then yeah, maybe
I am a simple man who did not finish high school. But I have been on this planet for 74 years and I have seen and felt the changes that have occurred over these years. For the past two years I have been recording American nightly news I can’t really remember of many broadcast that did not include some form of severe weather in the USA. They’re always seems to be a hurricane, multiple tornadoes, floods, extreme, cold, extreme heat, drought, and so on. it seems pretty obvious to me that the more densely populated and industrialized areas are getting hit harder and harder every year. But who am I, but a simple man?
Te number and severityof hurricanes has REDUCED in the past 100 years. That's official. You only hear about ot on the news so often because the media chooses to bombard you with alarmist crap
A simple, yet not very intelligent man.
Whenever anyone gives a talk where they have a condescending attitude about how "dumb" everyone who disagrees with them is, I immediately tune it out. Thank you for sparing me from the torture of needing to sit through that talk.
Both sides do that.
Right, that kind of aggression shows the speaker is motivated by something other than getting top the bottom of things.
@@bernardfinucane2061 you might be right
@@aaronjennings8385 You are totally right about that. I Never meant to imply otherwise.
@@jabradford32 great comment
18:55 We used to say "second-hand embarrassment" which means being ashamed on behalf of someone else, same as fremdschämen. Now people just say "cringe."
No, there is a difference. Cringe is for when you witness something that was uncomfortable to witness someone doing. Cringe doesn't imply empathy, secondhand embarrassment does.
@@Antleredangelbun If there was no empathy involved, it would just be funny and not uncomfortable.
@@stevencurtis7157 No. Some things do not feel good to witness. Not everyone laughs when they're uncomfortable. In fact most people don't find their own discomfort funny. It's not about being embarrassed for the person who did a thing, it's about feeling shame and embarrassment for your s e l f for having been in the situation where the thing occured. Hence, does not imply empathy.
@@Antleredangelbun Not laughing at your own embarrassment is consistent with my definition. I'm gonna chalk up the rest up to the word being overused to the point of uselessness. I'm not familiar with your usage.
@@stevencurtis7157 its literally not about the person saying the word experiencing embarrassment tho
“It is not famine, not earthquakes, not microbes, not cancer, but man himself who is man’s greatest danger to man. For the simple reason that there is no adequate protection against psychic epidemics, which are infinitely more devastating than the worst of natural causes.” - Carl Jung
The IPCC and the climate crisis protagonists are a wunderful example!
@@AMATER898 Stir up a panic. Pass a bunch of laws to solve it. Gain control of the peasants. Globally of course.
@@werefeat0356 Fascism is an example. Communism is another one. Jung was twice proven right. More evidence is coming. Sorry, I forgot the Inquisition. One thousand years before the Inquisition there were the Christians destroying valuable things from the past. And then, later, Islam was invented rather close to us and, then, a lot of new forms of madness became very evident and extremely destructive.
@@werefeat0356 Yeah, it's all psychic. Typical of someone bred in a concrete jungle. Let me guess, you couldn't name the scientific name of a single tree, you've never grown anything on your own, you don't care to visit other places because you're obviously ameriken and too broke for that, and you live by what a screen tells you, instead of experience, citing people that neither you or your fellow countrymen ever understood. Righty?
As a former psychiatry worker, I have a lot of respect for Jung, great philosopher, but not always very scientific. Saying that maga is a psychic epidemic, for example, doesn't explain anything, and doesn't help. There are more useful explanations.
Linus Pauling also won a Nobel prize and also went on to spout a bunch on nonsense later on. Disappointing behavior: it's called "being Human". That's why is important for people to develop critical thinking. Keep at it Sabine!
Another "global warming" groupie. For over 140 years so-called scientists have been wrong about weather ending the earth.
It’s hard to develop a critical thought when unqualified and or uninformed …a lot of what goes on in the climate science industry revolves around lack of quality control, mismanagement, being uninformed, and being unqualified
@@SearchIndex Can you say specifically what brings you to that conclusion?
Looks like our civilisation gets clauser to chaos every day 😢
It is a scary thought that the more knowledge is acquired, the more chaos we get.
who is Claus?
Optimist.
No ho ho ho to be found here :C
I know, it's sad. If only more sustainable tech could get solved for.
"If we ignore the data, blind ourselves to the complexities, disregard the petabytes of measurement data, brush off the work of thousands of specialist scientists, but know what we want to hear, it is easy, even as an utter outsider, to find a fairytale that will irrefutably support our story."
It's easy to blind yourself to the complexities from both directions. It is indeed a very complex scientific problem, and gathering thousands of scientists and petabytes of data is no guarantee of being closer to solving it.
If you blindly follow one side or the other you have already lost
if the process of computing the consequence is indefinite then with a little skill any experiment can be made to look like an expected consequence.
@@bangbangstabby2017 No. One side has decades of supporting evidence, from both private heavy GHG emission Corporations and the peer-reviewed scientific community.
The other side has Clauser-types, and Public Figures & Politicians who are indebted to the heavy GHG emitting Corporations who are profiting Trillions of Dollars off of our combined inaction.
The Climate Change deniers are the ones who have to provide extraordinary evidence to support their contrarian positions. Ones that go directly against the scientific theory supported by tens of thousands of scientists, in hundreds of separate disciplines, and with mountains of peer-reviewed data to support the overwhelming evidence of Human Caused Climate Change.
Equating the 2 as equal is the same as giving *“The 1x1=2 hypothesis”* the same weight as the multi-discipline science we use every single day, to both be the backbone of our current technology, and how we have evolved as a race over the centuries to understand the Universe.
@@DF-ss5ep But if you completely ignore petabytes of data, you *are* guaranteed to be no closer to solving it.
I've known too many people like this. He can only maintain that irritating smugness by ignoring any actual fact that contradicts him and by smearing the intelligence and/or character of anyone who speaks up to counter his claims. My sympathy to his family, he must be a constant embarrassment to them.
It can be hard to have such people in your family, I can attest. I can’t fully understand all the science to invalidate all the nonsense and unlikely scenarios, but with all the contradictions and limited knowledge how climate deniers are also very smug about them being right, not just questioning but ignoring peer reviewed science as if 99% of scientist are in the pocket of big oil etc, while the science isn’t in favour of big oil at all.
For a moment there I thought you were talking about some American politicians.
@@ivarbrouwer197Go read what the common scientist think about peer review.
Absolutely they are in their pockets. You can experience that by trying to get some funds to generate some research in the 1%-research. IT IS nearly not possible. The best sign that there IS something going on in the wrong direction.. Trust science IS Not working any langer.
It seems to be more common recently. I recognize it in people who just disregard members of the opposite political party. Of course it doesn't help when the opposite party doubles down on being idiots.
New studies now reveal a great number of cataclysms and life ending events including dinausaur extinctions and ice ages were triggered by very large solar corona ejections.
Thank you expert from the Internet!
It's true. The planet is not in trouble. It's life on Earth that has a problem
And not even that, to an extent. It’s us who the current climate was ideal for who are in trouble, but if the worst comes to pass, and we aren’t here anymore the earth will likely recover and new life will replace the forms of life that have passed. (Likely without intelligent life because that ‘experiment’ has then failed)
Life on earth also doesn't have a problem...but many reasons to rejoice. The fossil record is quite clear, the warmer the planet, the more life and biodiversity on earth. 👍
Thank you! I make this point frequently. Our planet can handle this current situation; it's handled similar and much worse throughout its 4.5 billion years, and it's pretty arrogant to say that it needs saving.
@@ivarbrouwer197 There are many animals species that are in trouble.
define 'problem' please.
Just another example of how we humans can be very smart in one way and very, very stupid in another way. It's remarkable how science has developed so much that scientists in one field are totally "clueless" about the science outside their own expertise.
I dunno. Makes me suspect that he’s not a particularly good scientist.
He’s probably just been standing on the shoulders of the right giants.
He's not being unintelligent, he's using his considerable intelligence to construct a justification for his something he already believes to be true. All the intelligence in the world will not help you if you're not truly curious about the subject and are just trying to justify yourself.
@@rantingrodent416Ben Shapiro style
Example: Neil deGrasse Tyson
Climate scientists are the leftovers of science, mainly physics. Until very recently, those departments received no money; they were the Cinderella of science. Today, they funnel billions. What is funny is that any scientist, and there are plenty, who disagrees with CO2-centered climate change is deemed stupid, has no clue, or is a big oil puppet
wait wait wait...
"OLD MAN YELLS AT CLOUDS"
This comment wins the internet.
This isn't about Joe Biden.
@@MrCPPG Joe Biden is barely around anymore - you're behind the times.
@@MrCPPGBiden isn't the one yelling at tornados and viruses. Try again ? 🎪
every explanation you offered, showing he is wrong had many "its hard to calculate" words in it, too...
Ego makes you a charlatan. No matter how good you are, sooner or later, it happens. And you'll be committed to your bullshits, generating exponentially larger and larger bullshits.
Sounds a bit like Donald Trump ;)
Count how many times Sabine says PROBABLY
@@robberlin2230Is this bad?
I agree--- For your well-being, it is beneficial to acknowledge that human beings possess egos and finite minds. There are indeed scientists with significant egos, which can lead to substantial issues. While the claim regarding dishonest scientists may hold some merit-perhaps referring to incidents like Climategate-my view is that the scientists involved were transparent, though the controversy continues to cast a lingering shadow.
Regarding your comments on mammatus clouds, I appreciate your insight, though it was not particularly useful for my purposes. Mammatus clouds, characterized by their sagging appearance, do not align with my preference for more defined forms. Consequently, my cloud watching will continue to rely on my imagination.
😂😂😂
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
Exactly. “Show me the money”.
like all fo the people paid with carbon dioxide grants?
“Putin preemptively stole my quote”
- Al Gore
In reverse as well
Exactly. Countless billions in grant funding and tenure goes to those who support The Narrative. But all too many ignore those implications.
I feel a bit better about not having a Nobel prize.
I mean why is a nobel winner going to deny a fact based climate change and he got a nobel on physics so is he pressured ? Or just to adjust himself in some political beliefs?
No kidding...how the hell did he get one to begin with? Just listening to him tells me to take ANYTHING he has to say has got to have a GIANT grain of salt with it. The personal incredulity is off the chart.
😂
Nobel prize winners have a tradition of occasional zaniness.
@@littleherms3285 He got it for his work on QM, decades ago.
Over the earths history, climate change has never stopped. 🤔🙏🌈🧐👩👴🏻👌🇺🇸❤️🗽
He doesn't sound well.
My dad started sounding fuddled, like he does, a year or so before dementia kicked in.
exactly, I think anyone who knows someone like this can see it
@@pawelparadysz
My dad was that guy everyone would ring for help with stuff the way your generation uses Google.
It was a huge shock when we started getting mumbled answers to questions we hadn't asked.
It can happen to even smart people.
He started sounding like that right before getting a nobel prize. GGWP. And yes global warming is a myth. Now they are talking about ocean currents breaking which might lead to global cooling. And also you can look at every prediction alarmists have had and they were all and always wrong. Since the 50s - in 20 years polar bears will die, antarctic will melt away and so on. Bears are fine and sea levels didnt rise globally. They just rise in some places and get lower in other places. To further the propaganda they only report on places where sea levels had risen. But its not a big change, otherwise all rich people would not have bought their houses so close to the seas.
Another symptom is a change in the function/ effectiveness of the frontal lobes. 'Ranting&raving' happens more frequent....
having cared for two elderly relatives, this was my first thought too
"... the Oceans - You know, all the blue parts on the globe" - LOL
Clauser sounds unwell. Hope he gets the support he needs to enjoy his twilight years.
Agreed...I think, his squirrel has abandoned it's wheel. Sad. Cheers!
He seems totally lost in this subject and clearly suffering from advanced cognitive decline. So sad that this is the fate for many of us.😢
He’s got Biden syndrome
@@robertjsmith he seems to think he knows better than the experts in the field, that's Trump syndrome not Biden. But his talking ability isn't good which might be what you were noting?
Judge Clauser on this science not his demeanor, that is childish and unchristian . Some people have medical issues and stammer do we disregard them as scientists?
*Fremdschämen*
Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance, is the death of knowledge.
Alfred North Whitehead
It would seem human ego overcomes the intellect every time.
And money of course.
Yep every time 🙄
For sure!
Whenever someone says something is very simple when everybody else struggles with it, it's probably not actually simple and the person who said that doesn't know what they're talking about
I don't disagree, but if you want to actually change minds, they need to answer the questions. Provide clear proof, if you just say you're a moron people will dig in, its human nature. Not saying its right, but combative responses rarely win in these cases.
False equivalence
@@CbSd994 It might be, but it is human nature. If you try to play like it isn't you will get no where. It like the media costantly attacking trump, they have made him the anti establishment thus promoting his popularity. If you just push people off call them dumb and laugh at their comments they will dig in and you will never change their mind.
@@TheJmac82 What facts and figures do you think would convince someone who has decided everyone else in the field is a liar? These folk haven't reasoned their way to their conclusion, they've picked a conclusion they want to believe and then cobbled together a random collection of assertions that they think prove it.
There's 2 (plus however many I'm not aware of) reasons why something is very simple when everybody else struggles with it:
A. The person saying this is making shit up
B. There's a strong bias in the group making them blind to the obvious solution eg. Darwin's analysis of natural evolution was a set of very simple observations (compared to many other theories of his time), but the bias in people back then due to religious reasons led to a blind spot.
I believe it was political commentator Kevin D Williamson who once wrote: "things are simple if you don't know a fu***ng thing about it". That seems to summarize much of what Clauser stated.
I believe that Clauser is taking a jab at the alarmist's honesty and lemming-like approach to science more so than their beliefs.
Hahaha.... I like that quote!
that is a logical fallacy
@@Bob_Adkins Not really. He dismissed the fact of our warming climate altogether, using a bunch of nonsense gobbledygook as a smokescreen to baffle people but make himself appear as if he knows what he's talking about (he doesn't) employing the authority conferred by his being a Nobel Laureate. There's a Nobel prize for literature. That wouldn't confer someone expertise in genetics or astrophysics.
@@MegaDeano1963 It's a general observation, it can't be a fallacy.
Still waiting for the Maldives to be underwater. I won't hold my breath.
Science learned about five years ago that many coral reef islands naturally rebuild their shores with sediment and broken coral after major storms. That finding has slowed the end date for many of these islands. But that hardly means that sea level rise isn't happening. The Maldives have lost almost all of their fresh water sources due to salt water intrusion, and they've been spending millions to aid nature in building up their islands with sediment dredged up from the sea floor, with technical help from MIT.
High tide flooding along the American south and Gulf coasts has jumped an astounding 400-1100% respectively since the year 2000. Maine, which is uplifting land from glacial rebound, is the last state we would expect to see have problems with flooding, yet last January a record high tide caused $100 million in damages. 8 coastal states are spending a combined $130 billion on new projects to hold back the rising tide. Not for shits and giggles, I assure you.
Following Dr. Clauser’s reasoning regarding cloud cover then Venus is in fact a temperate paradise…
The Venusians burned too much fossil fuels, lol.
Alas, Venus's atmosphere is 90x denser than Earth's and is mostly CO2. Excellent for trapping heat. Cloud albedo is far less effective in deflecting sunlight in such a stew.
That's hilarious, you just stated Venus wasn't caused by humans.. thank you, you've finally grown a brain and researched all the false information climate change conspiracy theorists have come up with.
Actually there was recent string of publications that suggest the possibility of life on Venus due to the strongly suspected presence of phosphine and ammonia. If is of course not confirmed yet but still interesting.
Yeah, pity that the reason Venus is actually warm is all the VOLCANOES.
One thing he is right about: "The planet is not in peril." Just human civilization is.
The planet will be just fine. We are "only" killing some (insert high number) percentage of life on it, and not just human life. As soon as we are reduced in size/numbers and stop burning fuels like mad, life will begin recovering slowly.
The planet won’t live for ever either
The planet is fine. Not so much for the western civilization who handled its future to those who want to destroy it.
@@dannotary951 'the planet is not in peril' stands to mean that earths timeline is largely unaffected by us.
And lots and lots of plant, animal etc. species along with humans.
Warming is not a myth
Change is normal
What is your definition of "normal"?
This isnt 'normal'. Actually, what do I know? I dont think we are from space so what we do must be 'natural'. We are only behaving as the universe decided we should. Even though we think it is an abomination. This 'change' that we are creating absolves us from responsibility. We ARE creating a monsterpiece. At least u think it is normal. I am not sure.
@@CD-kg9by Change
@@d314159 Maybe try writing a full sentence?
It's the rate of change that's causing problems here. It's normal for a car's speed to change from 50mph to 0mph. It's not normal for a car's speed to change from 50mph to 0mph in 2 seconds, like in a crash
Sabine lists in this video many elements of Climate Science which she states are estimates or unknown, and yet maintains that human-caused climate change is irrefutable.
Doesn't anyone find that odd? I also think that her patronising behaviour towards John F Clauser for challenging the science is unprofessional.
It is as though Sabine feels that if someone challenges Climate Change then they are anti-science even though she admits that there are so many gaps and holes in the discipline.
Neither deniers or believers get you tube income from not taking an extreme position . Nor will the climate change industry pay you for admitting you don’t have a clue .The result is that both sides are putting bread on the table from the arguments.So it goes on and on .
I totally agree w/ you. She’s actually constructing a straw man herself. And all the scorn & rage in the comment seems more applicable to climate cultists.
It’s laughable hearing Sabine defend the IPCC because they “admit” the problems w/ their methodology that cannot measure what it claims to measure. But we all know how this hustle works. It’s not science at all but the “scientism” we’ve all witnessed for years-the political process of indoctrinating and driving hysteria through the fallacy of authority & the media that pushes preordained narratives.
Climate scientists have began to admit many of the problems they have-but fail to revise those mistakes, they simply add an asterisk. (Wow around 17:50 he makes this very point)
It’s just bad faith for Sabine to defend the very behavior of these climate scientists that she excoriate this man for ostensibly taking part in. Eric Weinstein’s mixed (but kindly) opinions of Sabine prove prescient.
How climate scientists finally admit their scientism but fail to revise or correct anything-simply add asterisks-deserves scorn & derision on a global scale. It seems a lot like Faucism. It’s hard to say if humanity distrusts public health officials more than “authoritative” climate scientists pushing hysteria & panic and a dark neo-eugenics over anthropogenic climate change-but both are arrogant w/ hubris and egos far exceeding their credibility (and I’d wager their contributions too).
It's clear that climate change deniers are doing so under the influence of capitalism.
It's also clear that industrialisation & urbanisation has & continues to disrupt the wider ecosystem in ways that have never been seen in Earths history.
The supply of fossil fuels is predicted last only 50-100 years, imagine the accumulated fossilised energy of Billions of years of earth's history being burned through within a few centuries.
Why keep pretending that human development isn't radically reshaping the world around us?
Your moral outrage won’t make climate change not real.
I do not know how many cars are on the highway, but I know my chances of getting rear-ended are greater on the highway than in a forest.
Nobel awards are generally given many years after the noteworthy event. The 81 year old is lionized for his work in "...1972, working with Berkeley graduate student Stuart Freedman, he carried out the first experimental test of the CHSH-Bell's theorem predictions. This was the first experimental observation of a violation of a Bell inequality.[1][8] In 1974, working with Michael Horne, he first showed that a generalization of Bell's Theorem provides severe constraints for all local realistic theories of nature (a.k.a. objective local theories). ..." (Wikipedia) While we are grateful for his early contribution to quantum knowledge, he has proven he is unfit for purpose in both the current epoch and in this earth centric field.
You have proven nothing about the validity of his arguments. You've made up your mind on a topic you know almost nothing about, and anyone who contradicts it is automatically a bad guy in your view.
And the Lobotomy also received a Nobel. Not exactly a trustworthy practice.
When he was doing his work in 1972 winning the Nobel, climate "scientists" were proclaiming we'd be in a new ice age today.
He has spent his entire life being told "we only have 10 years or the world will end" and, no, he isn't dumb. The people listening to the alarmists, like you, are.
Wow, that's amazing. 😮
@@mickimicki5576 did you read the last sentence? Hint: click "read more"
Work listed for 2022 Nobel Prize - "One of the most remarkable traits of quantum mechanics is that it allows two or more particles to exist in what is called an entangled state. What happens to one of the particles in an entangled pair determines what happens to the other particle, even if they are far apart. In 1972, John Clauser conducted groundbreaking experiments using entangled light particles, photons. This and other experiments confirm that quantum mechanics is correct and pave the way for quantum computers, quantum networks and quantum encrypted communication."
So he is being recognized for work he did 50 YEARS AGO. I don't know what he has been working on the last HALF CENTURY but obviously it has NOT made him an expert on Climate Science. His Nobel has NOTHING to do with high variable numerical modeling or climate fieldwork and I doubt he has done anything since then to make him not just one more opinionated NON-expert on climate science. Obviously age is catching up with his powers of cognition sadly and DDP is slimy organization just willing to take advantage of his decaying mental aptitude.
It is, of course, ad hominem to point to Clauser's "decaying mental aptitiude". Nevertheless, the evidence for it is clearly there in his delivery of his paper.
@@CraigHocker he sounds like he's been working on something alcoholic.
Yet there are a many scientists, climate scientists who think it's a myth too. Most of them are older, retired or who's careers are not at risk. I'm glad there are people resisting the whole witch hunt nonsense by alarmists. Have you looked at the data? It's biased towards heat island effect data points. Rural temperatures haven't risen any more in the 20th century than they did in the 19th. Wreck our economies to the tune of $20 trillion for nothing. Thanks for that..
@@7ismersenneYou mean the evidence of his decay? Sorry, your text is not entirely clear as you could mean evidence in his talk on anti-warming stance. In my view, he comes across as arrogant and a poor speaker - not needed, irrelevant of having a medal on his fireplace.
Oddly, I once attended a lecture by Blobel in Connecticut expecting him to talk about ER/protein bits and he embarrassingly spent 40min talking about architecture in Dresden. Irrelevant of his passions, I think he had dementia as it was entirely inappropriate - medals don’t mean brilliance or enlightened personality.
His talk actually raises doubts as to whether the work done 50 years ago was really done by him, and not by one of his students.
He made a good point when he said "huuhhh, hubbuble uh... hm-uh ah gluhbuh bluhuh huh."
He's sloshed. Guilt over taking money.
He just has a bit of a stutter. But his arguments do seem to be stupid
That is the only part I understood.😪
😂😂😂
why are leftists so smug?
HOW can CO2 have the purported effect at such tiny concentrations?
You are right 0.04% of the Atmosphere is Dreaded CO2.which means 99.96% is other gases including Oxygen..Nitrogen.. Plants need CO2 and would Die without it..i read The level has since dropped to 0.03% now
Understand the physics here. Atmospheric CO2 molecules act like crazed pinballs, constantly bouncing off other molecules and exchanging their heat (absorbed from longwave radiation rising up from the earth) in all directions, including back toward earth. CO2 doesn't need to cover every micron of air to create a greenhouse effect because the heat they exchange fills the gaps between molecules.
Think of how a single drop of ink can permeate an entire glass of water with color. Diffusion spreads color everywhere the same way heat spreads throughout the atmosphere.
The blanket on your bed represents a fraction of the atmosphere in your bedroom yet manages to trap your body heat quite well. You don't need blankets piled bed to ceiling to keep you warm, right?
@@1pixman Beware of fossil fuel industry scare stories. For the 800,000 years leading up to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 never got above 300ppm and at one point dropped as low as 170ppm. Mostly it hovered around 250ppm. The planet didn't die. This is when megafauna like mammoths and mastadons thrived and human evolved.
In order to reduce CO2 to dangerous levels, we'd have to first shut off all of the world's volcanoes. Not possible. We'd have to prevent all wildfires. Ditto. Most formidable, we'd have to stop trillions of organisms from dying and decaying every year. That's not going to happen.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481homeopathy works
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481But isn't his point about the "extra" CO2 created by man having a negligable effect? In your example the blanket on the bed is the natural situation, if you add a handkerchief on top of the blanket you won't be noticeably any warmer.
No, I don't want to watch the whole thing, thank you for the summary❤
I'd like to watch her summary of all the predictions the "good scientists" made in the 90's and 2000's...
@Thomas-gk42 The summary starts at 18:18 so you had to watch the almost the whole thing to get there.🤣
@@imrekiss9534 Yes, but not 80 minutes Clauser´s stammering.🙄
Nobody does Dunning-Kruger like a Ph.D.
I will definitively quote that!
Boy is that ever the truth. But don't forget that it is true across the ideological spectrum and since the vast majority of PhDs are on one end of the spectrum, it is there that the D-K effect is most prevalent.
Nobody suppresses DEBATE like the IPCC, who annointed themselves the god of climate.
Nothing like having a China and G77-dominated organization (the UN) being at the heart of current "science" while partnering with the world bank, IMF etc to push for about 5 trillion to 'fix" the problem.
@@reshpeck Not sure you could show that to be empirically true, there are masses of people who think they know everything who prove they know nothing by opening their mouth. The problem with Ph.D's are that they do know something, they just think their ability at one thing translates across any subject matter. There are plenty of both Ph.D's and those without degrees that can speak intelligently on many topics, it is when extreme ideology contorts ones logic that you get people spouting fallacies.
I especially appreciated the irony of all straw-man fallacies Sabine makes up in response!
Apparently, the Nobel doesn't confer "Authority on Everything" when given to a person who did something long ago. Thank you Sabine.
A doctorate doesn't either. It means (in my experience) insanely deep knowledge in one VERY narrow band of things.
There are no renaissance men out there, knowledge is too big. It's a very difficult problem to counterbalance a democratic leaning society (meaning that everyone gets a say in some way on most big issues; where most of the world's governments are to some degree) with the fact that our knowledge is so vast and so deep now that even mastering a single field is VERY hard to accomplish for anyone in a lifetime unless you have a pretty shallow definition of mastery(because they're all expanding as you go). I have no idea how we square that either.
Sometimes Nobel Laureates are proven to be not so smart-and not promulgating anything beneficial to humanity. Case in point: the doctor who developed the lobotomy procedure.
There is a Trillion pictures per second camera on youtube why don't they use it for climate change? I'm not denying climate change I just feel we aren't certain enough The camera makes light look like a snail however if modified to go slower what would we see for different problems in science? So if the camera is real why not use it too?
@@Boris_ChangAnother example would be climate change proponents…
Sabine herself isn’t an expert on climate science… so who is she to say the guy is wrong?
She is telling the guy to stay in his lane while she isn’t even in hers… 😂
Lately people are opening their eyes to the lies we are being fed.
The lies of the fossil fuel industry? Yes.
"which I'm telling you just so that my 3 years of Latin are finally good for something" Made my day xD
Please don’t quit. I have to believe, just based on my reactions while listening, that you treat this as a labor of love, and I’m glad I’m part of the humanity for whom you are doing this stuff. ❤ I’m also sorry that the mess needs cleaning up. 😢 That’s a very long way ‘round to saying thank you. But just “thanks” doesn’t nearly cover it!
Logical thought brings us to the observation that the validity of an idea does NOT come from the SOURCE of the idea. Sadly, we all find ourselves ignorant of an issue at hand now and then. There are jokes to make this point, but you know…
It was nice of you to take grandpa at face value. I am happy to bet that the prize must surely have gone to his head, and now he’s milking his fifteen minutes of fame. (I would too.) Just like old athletes, who come out of retirement for one appearance and make more money in that one appearance than they made in their entire careers, back in the day!
Much more entertaining with your reactions! 😵💫🤦♂️
My last thought (no applause!) is that the morons at that conference in Texas will also be too dumb to migrate with the rest of us. Maybe they’ll contribute part of a jaw to a far future archeologist! 👍 They’re sure not contributing anything while they’re alive.
Thanks for the feedback and also the support!
@@SabineHossenfelder sorry for forcing you to do only content like this because otherwise i always have something smart to say lol 😂
@@SabineHossenfelder10:50 i can't defend this lol 😂 i usually try to defend but this is just ridiculous and i know $1×$1=$1²=$2 and this makes no sense to me... spinning up the rotation of the earth lol 😂
@@SabineHossenfelderthey gave this guy a Nobel Prize give me my Nobel prizes for if this guy deserves a Nobel Prize I definitely do
@@SabineHossenfelderI will say that the cloud idea is a good idea that he presents that's the one piece of evidence that makes logical sense
There is another fitting German saying: "Schuster, bleib bei deinem Leisten."
("Shoemaker, stick to your last.")
Stick to what you know how to do?
@@AstroGremlinAmerican - Had to look it up, turns out a "last" is a wooden footshaped thing used in shoemaking. So I learned something today.
@@AstroGremlinAmericanyeah, pretty much "stay in your lane."
I understand and it's an appropriate sentiment here, but there's too many examples where the consensus was wrong for me to casually throw around such terms. But so long as we are permitted to debate with crazy ideas, we have the opportunity to find the truth of any matter.
@@AstroGremlinAmerican Basically, yes, but the saying is more used in a negative connotation. "Shut up about stuff you don't know sh*t about"
That is an absolutely absurd statement. Its why we are in this mess in the first place because midwits actually believe such a thing that you should only talk on what a piece of paper claims you have been trained in. That is how we get brainwashing.
I sure miss those icebergs that have melted. As well as my beach front house now under water. Tragic, really.
Well.. this is just sad! An old man that many years ago did something great, but sadly thinks that that automatically is applicable to a completely different field 50 years later... Why is this phenomena so common ?..
Yes, my thought too...
Count how many times Sabine says PROBABLY
@@robberlin2230 Yes, how new, that climate science is not exact science. The question is, will we take the risk? We never would in our personal daily life, but we do it for whole humanity.
@@Thomas-gk42 I dunno, the risks of attempting to reverse the industrial revolution seem quite high too.
@@Thomas-gk42 I don't understand your question sorry
It is really strange that he doesn't see that the problem is not that simple. Everyone with a basic understanding of physics can come up with simple balance equation like he puts on the board, but as soon as you put clouds into it, arctic albedo, long-cycles that are responsible for ice ages and warm periods, it becomes clear that this is much much harder than what you can put onto the board and that is basically unsolvable without resorting to supercomputer calculations.
Plus all the local unknowns and the ton of accidental and deliberate false data.
Which all makes modelling as a tool to understand the actual situation highly inadequate and it is the reason why this modeling should never drive policy.
There is a reason why all the doom predictions never come true, all of the above.
But here we are, in a time where policy drives the science and the science is totally corrupted by special interests.
Anyone that does not sing the official "we are all going to fry, so do as we say" song is relentlessly attacked by the likes of Sabine and other doomsday cult believers.
Taking cheap shots at an aging man that is not panicking as ordered is not debunking anything, it's just pathetic IMO.
The limits of climate modeling are very real, even the weather is hard to get exactly right or even improve upon with more computing power.
More input does not improve the results, more computers also does not.
It's a chaotic system and the limits of making long term accurate predictions for that are very real.
Mitigation strategies are the way to go, and they can focus on real and local effects, instead of assumed global effects.
So far the policies are less than useless, they damage everyone and solve nothing.
The fact that he openly says in the talk that scientists are "dishonest" immediately is a red flag. If your theory is really true, then the evidence would speak for itself, you wouldn't need to trash other people in your talk.
@@Rik77 He is not wrong on that, examples abound that do not pass even a smell test.
Manipulating definitions, historical data and selectively discarding data are all part of the deceit.
And independent of this, if you still trust scientists on their title and blue eyes after Coved, then you are lost, unable to even discus this topic.
@@TheEVEInspiration go away and stop being an idiot
@@TheEVEInspirationoh dear...🤦
I know this is a really big ask, but can you climate scientists get JUST ONE prediction right? For the past 30 years we've been bombarded with countless doomsday scenarios and not one of them came even remotely close to happening. Just once, try to look as if you know what you're doing.
Thought she was an expert viro-immuno-epidemiologist 🤔
“Unvaccinated are a danger to themselves and others. Of course, they should not have the same rights and freedoms as vaccinated people. Anyone who intentionally puts others in danger has to live with the consequences.”
Sabine Hossenfelder, 2021
@@lucar.923 and that was a solid statement at that time.
Now, Sabine credited the people aiding her in the making of this video, admitting meteorology is not her field of expertise. What is the point you are trying to make?
Which one did they get wrong? Most doomsday scenarios are playing out but they take time to happen. How about we act on what we see on at least partially correct theories instead of waiting for full doom and gloom, then admitting to the scientists "Hey, you know, you were like, pretty much spot on with the droughts, lost harvests, disappearing drinking water, rising of the sea levels ... !! Maybe we should do something about it".
@@MrFDdude Solid my ass 🤡
@@MrFDdude Not a solid statement and meteorology is a far cry from climate science which is another far cry from celestial mechanics ...
Anytime there is a "consensus" in science...be aware....be very aware
And any time open minded review of why a Nobel prize winner who applied scientific analysis to come to his conclusion can not be tolerated … be aware. When open minded scientific method is replaced with public shaming of the Nobel prize winner … be very aware. When paid influencers promote close minded emotional rejection designed to shut down serious consideration of the science … be very aware
There is no consensus??? What about 2+2=4 ; the Earth is not flat, it is shaped like a sphere ; the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around....
The concept of "scientific consensus" does exist, and fortunately so! There are millions of scientific discoveries that are a consensus within the scientific community, and like it or not there is a consensus on anthropic climate change.
When a scientist thinks that on a specific point the consensus must be contradicted (and therefore that the scientific community, after contradictory debate, evolves towards a new scientific consensus different from the first), he must do so with reliable, solid scientific elements recognized by peers. This is NOT what Clauser does,, here as demonstrated by Sabine, he is bullshitting.
Evidence of the consensus on anthropic climate change, this study: "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature", Mark Lynas et al.
There are consensuses on many, if not most things in science. After all, you agree that 1+1=2 and that an apple falling from a tree has something to do with gravity, right?
@CD-kg9by You see, you just made my point, you want my consensus without testing your claim. That's not how science works. In other words, you want me to accept your outcome as fact instead of presenting it as your outcome that should be tested and verified by me. This goes to my point, stop presenting things as facts. Especially things like global warming (climate change phrase is idiotic, as the climate is always changing by its very definition and was used for political reasons). So to answer your question, I do not know if 1+1=2, but I accept this mathematical statement as true because I am satisfied with my limited testing results. Any "scientist" who says it's true is exactly the person for which I am speaking. You asked me if I believe 1+1=2, science isn't about my beliefs, that's religion. Science should always be presented as findings.
Edit: which is why there are no consensus in science.
@@garywildgoose767 You really don’t understand the concept of scientific consensus.
You state « I do not know if 1+1=2, but I accept this mathematical statement as true because I am satisfied with my limited testing results. ». So you imply that you accept scientific statements only if you are able to test them YOURSELF. Are you kidding ?? There are thousands of scientific facts (on which there is a scientific consensus) that you accept, as all of us. And this for a very good reason : nobody has the ability and not even the time to check each and every of them.
Science is indeed made of findings and when these findings converge from thousands of scientific studies the findings become a consensus. And on this consensus science builds up new knowledge.
If you read a scientific paper you can find a long list of publications attached to it, these are the findings on what the new study is built on. And the scientist making this new study borrows data and conclusions from other works. The scientist does NOT redo all the tests and studies described in these references ! (except if the work is precisely to recheck a former paper, it goes without saying). That’s how science does work.
It's always dangerous for someone to pontificate outside their wheelhouse. If you think you might be able to contribute to an expertise outside your own, work with someone in that other area to see if you actually can contribute.
So 99.9% of everyone.
yeah, ike Sabine on carbon dioxide> wtf... are any of you people for real?
I think it is awesome to have a huge market of random, creative and different ideas.
But any perspective is open to debate and smart people can confidently articulate their complex perspectives.
But, it should all be open to reply and discussion, and Nobel lareats have earned their respect, but they should also know that they can lose that respect.
This rebuttal is amazing. It may feel like an attack but it's just showing his mistakes.
there also a contra-indicators to this work-flow.. for example A Wegener and the continental drift thesis.
Personally I think social 'sciences' are the most ripe for disruption by 'outside' thinkers, as I found that they do not link up to the other sciences and take what they have figured out about reality as foundation to work from. It's rather disjointed. They use maths / statistics and whatnot.. but otherwise, no connection whatsoever.
that's a logical fallacy
"speed up the rotation rate of Earth" ... now I have to wipe coffee spray from my monitor and keyboard once more while contemplating whether that claim is clever way beyond my pay grade, or simply dumb.
To speed up the rotation we need to get mass closer to the axis. Like building large dams at high latitudes. Or have more ice build up at the poles. We do have a little of that in Antarctica, but not in the northern hemisphere were we are loosing glaciers and have a shrinking pole cap.
So at my pay grade of a graduated electric engineer & computer scientist I tend towards "simply dumb".
Now continuing to watch after having a clean screen again ...
"To speed up the rotation we need to get mass closer to the axis"
Or simply add rotational energy. Since "climate change" is said to be *slowing down* the rotation of Earth, obviously there's a connection.
www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-funded-studies-explain-how-climate-is-changing-earths-rotation
you do realize it is speeding up though right? look it up
@@HELLBENDER77 11:13 ... I "looked it up".
As you say beyond your paygrade, if not simply dumb
As an astrophysicist, I approve of your answer. One can btw also do it by accreting mass the right way, or by tidal effects. The drag of the moon actually slows us down over time very slowly...
≈1m37s: "The light that hits the surface is converted to infrared; that gets partly trapped by carbon dioxide, which keeps our planet warm."
Actually, the bulk of the trapped infrared gets trapped by water vapor, not carbon dioxide, a significantly weaker greenhouse gas.
Fred
Water vapor is globally stable in our atmosphere, while CO2 increased suddendly since 10th century by +50%. And such excessof one GHG warms the planet. Simple.
Technically correct (the best kind of correct), but water vapour doesn't increase unless temperature increases. So while gaseous H2O is the primary effective agent, CO2 is still the reason for it. Same thing goes with things like albido (CO2 causes warming, therefore causing melting snow and ice, which lowers the albido of the surface of the planet). While CO2 isn't always the direct cause of the warming, all the roads that do lead to CO2 eventually.
true, which is why the phrase "partly trapped" was used. The scale of the difference in surface temperature is tiny, it's just that we are very sensitive to it. The real percentage change in temperature, which is what we are talking about, is 1.1 degrees in 298 for a 25 degree centigrade local temperature. Just a 0.4% change in the insulating effect of the atmosphere. Not so much now is it.
Partly trapped by carbon dioxide means exactly what you just wrote but less wordy.
You can’t insulate anything with 400 ppm co2. Global warming is natural, and feeds on itself by warming oceans and increasing clouds. We are in a natural cycle. Where is the mathematical proofs for co2 causing the warming climate?
The more I learn about climate science the less qualified I feel to have an opinion on climate change.
A classic case of “being a scientist means that you have very specialized training in one specific field, not that you wear a coat of +10 science”
Critical thinking can easily be lost.
Tell that to the 97% of scientists who think they know more about climate change than actual climatologists.
i would like a video on the earth sun cycle and how it impacts climate over 30-40 thousand year cycles and have it compared to the effect humans have with the effect the sun earth cycle has removed
@@cwpv2477 I don’t know of a specific UA-cam video, but I have heard of Milankovitch cycles. While they are responsible for a lot of climate change in the past, they are far too slow to explain current trends. Their climate conditions take thousands of years, not decades, to manifest.
It’s not about science, it’s about money. He’s part of a think tank funded by Petroleum companies(one of the key people in it was a CEO as well). These were the same people who also denied that the Ozone hole existed back in the day. Oil companies are funding these ‘non profit’ climate denier think tanks nd trying to get any scientist in who will take a paycheque for it.
man, that guy gives off "it is indeed safe to ignore what I'm saying" vibes.
There’s something else there too. Almost Bond villain-ish in the way he wants to prove he’s right.
Which people will, right or wrong.
Really? I get that vibe from anyone that says "denier." No one who has ever said humans are causing climate change and that we have to act now has given me a sense that they are speaking in good faith.
@@PvblivsAelivsu mean when they say that there are over 200,000 peer reviewed research papers, that does not influence you. I sense a denier.
as do you
Sabine, you have to admit.. when they put the temperature measure devices in parking lots like i see here near where i worked, they are lying. He does something outside the usual frame of reference.
CDN also showed a great statistic of how they also conveniently removed a number of them in areas that didn’t help them build there dooms day predictions
I start to think that Nobels are highly overrated. I can’t explain it otherwise…
Just like when Michael Attiyah claimed to have proven the Riemann hypothesis, here's another example of an old scientist that did some really cool and important stuff, but is now going batty and doesn't have enough young friends to tell him "bro, you're going to embarrass yourself, don't give this talk"
No, it's not "just like" that.
You're attacking the man, not the idea.🤡
This person has made such glaring mistakes that it brings the question of whether or not he's even a reputable scientist to begin with. I've delt with too many "geniuses" that were sucking on the work of students and junior researchers.
When you come out attacking an entire field over a very important topic, your character is not to be spared, especially coming from an authority figure.
I think his answer was: "youngster, I don't listen to you."
Why do they measure temperature in the cities where the temp is always more?
And they have closed down any measurements in rural areas, and have "compensated" in the temperature "data".
@@racitup4114 That is absolutely not true. There are many temperature measuring stations in rural areas.
Sounds like a guy who started out with a conclusion and worked backwards from there.
Have you listened to Micheal Mann?
the irony, hilarious.
Or one that listened to actual climatologists instead of politicians:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1112950/
You may be thinking you are making a joke, but that is more or less how science works. Only that the initial "conclusion" is called hypothesis.
@@Volkbrecht Except you aren't trying to come up with evidence to support your hypothesis. You're looking at the evidence to see whether it does or doesn't support your hypothesis. You wouldn't treat it as a conclusion from the outset, like this guy did.
*with a concussion
It is. I
“Climate change” is essentially statistical and data manipulation. See Tony Heller, data expert.
I am very glad, Sabine, that you were able to articulate his point(s) better than he was . . .
When I listened to him I heard a man with dementia. It must be that, because some of his "ideas" sounded terribly wrong to me, even crazy, and I have just a Bachelor's degree in physics.
"just"
The worst thing about dementia is you don't know that you have it. Kinda like insanity.
If you ever heard someone with actual dementia, it's off the scale compared to Mr. Clauser. Either he's a prime example of DK effect, or money changed hands.
@grindupBaker Yes David Gorsky give a name to this: Nobelitis (form of nobel prize disease )
@grindupBaker Yes he's old, but how old was he when he developed his beliefs about climate change, hmmm?
Hamming believed the motivation for his "Nobel Prize effect" was a yearning to remain relevant, given that the work upon which a Nobel is based sometimes precede the Prize by half a lifetime or more. This appears to be the situation in Clauser's case.
Keep in mind Obama was given a "Nobel" for doing nothing at all.
Amusing that at 2:47, Sabine's example disproves CO2 as the source of global warming, then goes on to continually give conflicting views e.g. Clauser talks about not knowing what THE baseline is, so she comments that for one particular graph an arbitrary baseline is given - but if the baselines change from graph to graph and not all of them always define them, then there is no single baseline to be THE baseline. It's like saying the tap water temperature is up by 2C, then 3C but having different baselines for each measure in order to support the idea the temperature is increasing. If the baseline is taken from the 1930s, temperatures are down. If the baseline is taken from the mini ice age, temperatures are up. Changing reference points and baselines enables a person to asset whatever narrative they choose.
Different baselines will depend on the context, on what information you are showing. Nothing unexpected with such a complex matter with multiple aspects to consider.
Yet scientists don't have any trouble understanding the given baselines and they still come to the same core conclusions.
The problem here is why we wouldn't trust the vast majority of the experts (working daily on the topic I mean) over a handful of scientists (and a lot of amateurs) who happen to "have a look" and disagree with what their specialized colleagues established.
We can wish scientists were better communicators and didn't confused us with different baselines. But you can't blame them for not talking at layman's level in their scientific publications.
Plus, in publications like the IPCC reports, there are not only graphics with different data and baselines. They actually describe and explain the shit. Over thousands of pages..
Anyway, again the question is why some people distrust this gigantic community of experts, and the answer is not in the data they use..
@@oberric2388 The major issue with baselines is that they are picked to prove whatever the author wants. As I pointed out, you can prove temperatures are either rising or falling depending on from which year or century you take your data. Temperatures are down if you take your reference point as the 1930s or the mediaeval warm period a thousand years ago, or the neoproterozoic 600 million years ago, but temperature is up if you take it from the 1960s, the mini ice-age 200 years ago or the last ice age 12,000 years ago.
As for distrust? Well, the various scandals we've had include:
- Vice President Al Gore defunding research that didn't align to his environmental goals (1992-2000)
- The EU providing environmental funding larger than "big pharma" could during the 1990s . I was in academia at the time, and when you have pharmaceutical research teams switching to more lucrative environmental projects, and quantum mechanics research teams suddenly doing environmental research, you have to worry about both the quality of the research and the monetary incentive
- Nature and other journals' editorial teams admitting in 1997 that they were choosing to publish papers that supported the climate change narrative over those which did not
- The IPCC scandal of the late 90s and early 2000s where much of the data was found to be fake and interviews with the publishers showed they were worried about losing their jobs as the data didn't support the narrative
- The Canadian courts finding Michael Mann's "hockey stick" chart was false and unsupported by evidence after he attempted to sue Tim Ball for libel in 2011.
@@GA-lf2uh Well, I really disagree with your assessment on the scientific claims or functionning.
"The major issue with baselines is that they are picked to prove whatever the author wants".
I get your point but I just don't see that it's actually happening here. When a scientist pick a baseline just to make their point look better, the others see it because that's an easy thing to pick up and pretty much insulting. So when we talk about one a the most studied topic on this planet, it would be absurd to believe that the main scientific positions largely held today could be based on dishonestly tuned baselines in some graphs.
Then you have to get the extra mile and pretend the main position is a lie known and actively perpetuated to the public by virtually the entire scientific community, which sounds very, very bold and unlikely to me. Again, we are considering the thousands of people from different countries, institutions, domains of expertise, backgrounds or even political preferences who work on multiple parts of this topic. I don't believe a minute the vast majority of them would agree to just blatantly lie or let the colleagues do it.
Yes, it depends on what period we compare measurements to. But the data the scientists use and present supports what they conclude. Either you believe them or not, I don't think it's really a dispute on the presented scientific data.
Yes, I understand that trust can be damaged by human behavior, "corporate culture", bad communication and all the political layers amidst. I just don't see that sufficiently present in the climate scientific community to the point that I would need to doubt the main global positions. And I definitely don't see it as being more present or problematic on this academic side than on the opposite questioning or denying side (where very visible political and economical interests are at play and should make us at least as critical to their expressed skepticism).
But we won't simply agree here and that's ok. Thank you very much for the detailed response anyway!
I respond hereafter to the elements you provided :
"Temperatures are down if you take your reference point as the 1930's or the medieval warm period."
I don't think that this agrees with what we know of the global mean temperatures of those periods today. Could you share a specific recent source describing that?
About distrust :
- Al Gore defunding :
Can you point me to a specific example of that? By the way, you know there is and has been massive financial lobbying the other way around, right? Why trusting the denialist?
- Academic funding/monetary incentive :
Are you pretending that academic research only get to conclusions that please funders (i.e. politics in that case)? If public research fundings consistently dictate the scientific conclusions, then we can basically throw away most of scientific "knowledge", right? You don't do that, do you? Or just specifically concerning climate science?
I know that academia is not perfect and pure, but your claim need to be backed up by extensive proofs that the science is voluntarily and massively manipulated. But again, you know that climate denialism or "controversial researches" are also financed, right? Why would we trust them more?
- The IPCC scandal "where much of the data was found to be fake" :
"much of the data", seriously? Do you really believe thousands of people in the world are still working with those fake data just so? Do you think they go to work and play with digits on their computer, faking research all year long because they would all lose their job for pointing inconsistency? Again, I get that there are political and personal pressure in academia (as there are in and on the IPCC of course), but in which academic field had you to work were finding something knew or problematic would basically be forbidden?
I read about the "Climategate" so to say, about the internal mails and accusations of manipulation. I also read the explanations and what it was about.
There may still be disagreement on the way things should be presented but for me it leads in no way to conclude "much of the data was found to be fake", that's not what happened and does not reflect the validity or acceptation of the main data and main claims of the scientific community today.
- The unsupported hockey stick chart :
Are you saying you distrust scientific experts because one of them lost a libel case about what someone said of one chart? Since when does a court say what is correct science? A libel case has never been a way to determine science and I don't care if Michael Mann was legitimately angry or had soft skin or whatever. Wikipedia has an extensive article on this chart with dozens of references to document the controversies and the works which essentially still support today what the chart pointed. Again, it would be far too simplistic to just point something imperfect in science communication to distrust the entire body of knowledge on the subject.
Proof that you can win a Nobel prize and still be narcissisticly ignorant in subjects outside your field.
Do you need to be a climate scientist to look out of the window...?
‘Narcissistically ignorant’. Interesting ad hominem attack. Why is he a narcissist? Why are you qualified to know this? I suppose it takes one to know one…
@@manoo422 Did you need an explanation of the difference between your local weather and the climate? They covered this in school surely - did you go to school in the USA?
@@Naptosis Apart from the fact its true wherever you are in the world...
How bad is a crisis that cant be seen...other than a propaganda crisis...
hes light years ahead of stupid climate scientists
Clauser made some quantum calculations and concluded that it isn’t raining outside, my shoes aren’t soaked, and that rain is not possible.
Very convincing. 🤓 This comment needs more thumbs up! 👍
yeah bro, like did you see the rain coming out of the cloud? See? So it can't be raining.
A few years ago a monsterous volcanic explosion north of Tonga caused increased cloud cover and rainfall in the southern hemisphere resulting in colder weather
Really? Try reading about volcanoes. Volcanic eruptions spew all sorts of material other than water vapor into the air. Thus the clouds that are formed are not the same as normal clouds. This is why planes cannot fly in an area which has had a volcanic eruption. Yes, they are thicker and block sunlight and absolutely can make things cooler. As Sabine said in her video, there are many different types of clouds, even just talking about clouds formed from water vapor.
@@mattbosley3531 I hope you don’t teach people for a living. Try getting your point across without condescending and diminishing someone. You have a vindictive and nasty attitude. I feel sorry for the people that have to interact with you on a daily basis.
@@mattbosley3531this specific volcano brought a huge amount of water in the atmosphere. What is your point?
@@hydeparkist You don't know what you're talking about.
It's notable that Clauser, Happer and Judith Curry all kind of half-laugh during their rhetoric. I suppose they think it enhances the audience's belief in their narrative as the 'laughing' steers that audience to believe that all the world's climate experts are fools.
I've had an old teacher at my university and in his age, his thinking was... somehow slower. He just simply "read" his lectures, written by him many years before. But always when we approached him with additional questions, he began to laugh, tell stuff like "You don't understand these simple things? How would you then end the whole course?" etc. and in the end giving no answer to us :(. Just that "Clauser-like" laughter.
@@pavoladam4457 In denialist debunking circles we call this 'gone emeritus' - it refers to the tendency of some old semi-retired Professors to pontificate about areas of science they have little or no expertise in (or have lost their ability in) because their egos are so big that they think they know everything in all areas
When it's suggested a ball can roll up hill rules are not understood so a chuckle is in order much as any energy not following the gradient. We know the flow of electricity is reversed to explain the thermionic valve and transistor but even opposing theories are useful in explanations of a possible mechanism. Insistence on narrative without an explanation is illogical.
@@BrinJay-s4v Types like Clauser and Happer are NOT commenting on metaphorical 'suggestions that a ball can roll up hill'. They are constructing strawman arguments, that climate science never said, to knock down. Either they are being deceitful or gullible, having listened to denialist sources feeding them these misleading strawmen, or, frankly, because of their extreme age, they are no longer mentally sharp enough to realise their errors
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly some people are willing to sell their integrity! I'm guessing it's because they never had much concern about it from the beginning. Makes me wonder just how much of his Nobel Prize "work" was actually his and how much he stole from his graduate students. My guess is 5% his and the other 95% is his graduate students and colleagues.
Was he drunk during the talk? 🤔
@@patrickfle9172 Lower your voice, increase the volume, also that of the whiskyglass.
Sadly, it sounds a bit like the decline we've repeatedly seen in both old white men candidates (well one former candidate) for POTUS.
Honestly I thought it was Trump speaking the first few seconds
I'm kind of wary of asking because I'm concerned that he might have some kind of Parkinsons or something, but yeah, he does sound like he just climbed a really steep flight of stairs, but for the whole speech.
Even I felt the same!
I remember looking at the radiation spectrum of things oxygen has a peak which tends to regulate temperature, if it gets too hot oxygen radiates more heat and less hezt if it gets colder. Water does similar things but peak is more broad.
Its so complicated i can never contribute, but my perspective is that what really happens instezd of all these doom and gloom predictions used to motivate people, make money, sell news and win elections. For example alot of land in artic and antartic is becoming habitable as treeline is advancing rapidly into the tundra. Crops yeilds are greatly increasing due to co2 and temperature.
My point is global warming is good, band ugly, climate change happens we need to plan for it. Instead we run around like chicken little crying the sky is falling. I dont care if its man made or not.
Problem is, the polar regions shouldn't have trees growing there as the heat effect elsewhere will be terrible. Remember that over 90% of humanity lives in the sunbelt. And it's getting really hot here.
Also,crops don't only need CO2 but water too. And that's drying up leading to crop loss. They also can't tolerate high temperatures, just look into what's happening with wineries in Italy and France. Messed up rain patterns are destroying crops in India leading to farmers committing suicide and very high food inflation.
So think beyond your own bubble when it comes to the planet.
Crops use way less water at higher co2 levels actually.
It's very common practice to crank them up to 2000ppm in greenhouses.
And ppl in Africa starve mainly due to foreign intervention.
What do you expect when you feed population that can't produce that level of food on their own.
Populations naturally stabilise, when limiting factor was always food, what will happen if it's suddenly plentiful?
The most important greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor. I just can't stress how important increase in absolute humidity is regarding trapping more infrared radiation.
@@johnzach2057 No, it’s not THE most important one. It’s important, yes, but far less than CO2. Why? Water vapour does not continue to build up in the atmosphere in perpetuity, but cycles in and out of the atmosphere vi the Earth’s water cycle. Carbon, on the other hand, continues to build and increase the heat trapping qualities of the atmosphere and persists in the atmosphere from 100s to 1000s of years because the CO2 we’re adding exceeds Earth’s natural carbon cycle to draw down carbon as fast as we’re adding it.
I live in Florida and it's summer. I couldn't agree more.
True, but seldom mentioned?
True, but seldom mentioned?
I expect that the reason it doesn't come up is because it's a known factor that has been accounted for in the existing models, and does not explain the _increased_ temperature of the planet.
And above all: He should have told that to the glaciers, they have obviously melted for nothing.
@@michaelbrandtner3302 it is simple: faster Earth’s rotation forces all solids to evaporate into space because of centrifugal forces.
@@andreys7729 yes of course, and as the earth moves faster the friction against the atmosphere increases generating more heat which explains the increased number of forest fires. The increased turbulence also makes hurricanes and tornadoes more likely. I think we just solved it! /s shouldn't be necessary but I think it just might be...
@@haqvor unfortunately, my witty reply was removed by UA-cam’s algorithms because it doesn’t understand irony:(
@@andreys7729 now I want to read it, I bet it was at bit funny! :(
@@andreys7729 I still see your comment about evaporating the Earth;-)
Maybe Mr. Clauser is in an age, where you start prefer to have your head above the clouds!
And you are more intelligent than him not
Or, maybe he's at an age where he doesn't care what others think and aren't dependent on them for a pay cheque (likely lives on pensions). It's amazing what you can say when you don't have to kowtow to somebody for a pay cheque.
Or maybe you are an uneducated person, because he sounded very articulate in his last interview. More than you will ever be
@@johnnemeth6913
You'd love that to be true, wouldn't ya?
Say something Sabine disagrees with and your channel will get blocked from commenting. So progressive!
I'm glad that you engage with these arguments, instead of simply brushing him off as crazy. When people refuse to engage with opposing points of view, it makes me worry that they aren't actually able to make a counterargument. I would say that the best way to defeat bad arguments is with better arguments.
In this case I agree with you in general I don't. It is impossible to get any meaningful arguments out if you are constantly forced to rebut made up stuff. In the end it is your responsibility to see through bad faith arguments not others responsibility to hold your hand so that you don't get lost.
The problem with the strategy is that it can be exploited and it is very much exploited by bad faith actors. It is much easier and quicker to make stuff up than it is to rebut it. So by making up stuff that sounds believable at first glance you tie up your opponents resources by forcing them to counter argument your nonsense. That is modus operandi by many extreme far right organizations, one current example in the US is Trump and the Republican party. It is of course not uncommon in other contexts but that is probably the most obvious example that many should be able to relate to.
Listening to this man is torture.
woman ...
@@PaulBowman-y1r For $49.95 you can take my course on how to make friends and not be the lonely one.
@@PaulBowman-y1r sounds a bit like a Trump rant.
Think what it must be like to be him.
to people who can't handle the truth
Funny how JFC is both his name, and how I’m reacting 😂
Dependence and correlation are the hardest concepts to get across. Along with the difference between a bias, which is NOT added in quadrature, and a random error, which IS added in quadrature.
Not the first time a Nobel Prize winner has been wrong. Linus Pauling won 2 noble prizes but was totally wrong about quasicrystals. From the day Shechtman published his findings on quasicrystals in 1984 to the day Linus Pauling died (1994), Shechtman experienced hostility from him toward the non-periodic interpretation.
And there was Montagnier in France on COVID.
There's also doctor António Egas Moniz. He won the 1949 prize as the inventor of the lobotomy. The Nobel prize doesn't guarantee perfection, or that the work to earn it will be looked at positively in the future.
quasicrystals -- now there's an obscure reference!
Pauling also consumed prodigious quantities of Vitamin C each day. Amounts that would cause most people to expreience toxic side effects.
Antonio Egas Moniz won a nobel prize for inventing the lobotomy in 1949.
António Egas Moniz won the prize in 1949 for the loab 0t0my. UA-cam keeps removing my comments, I believe because of the word of the procedure for the prize. Let's see if this one doesn't get taken down
The biggest disaster is going to be people trying to to fix something when they don't know how it works. It's like grade schoolers trying to fix a nuclear reactor. "A little learning is a dangerous thing...."
Sounds like a conversation that wasn’t had amongst mRNA vax researchers.
@@penpondstechnically speaking it wasn’t a vaccine because it didn’t go through a 5 year trial period.
Particularly when that "fixing" entails spending $Trillions answering the wrong question.
I remember the drought and heat of 1976 in Ireland and the UK when the roads melted.
LOL :-)
@@krystal5887 .. It's raining at the moment.
Have you forgotten the 40C record in summer 2022? Included multiple locations and Gringley on the hill, a village.
And it has never happened since ......
@@TheDisproof nope it was on a runway BBC look north explained this
Climate has always been cyclical. So much argument over pure hubris.
The Milankovitch Cycles that drove global warming in earth's past are all in cooling phases now and have nothing to do with today's warming. There is no greater hubris than armchair PhDs who think they know more than actual PhDs.
He won a nobel prize by doing an experiment designed by another person. It wasn’t even accurate enough to be real proof. Nobel Prize awards are often not handed to the person who actually performed the creative process. So many examples.
They are also handed out to people who haven't done anything too....like Barrack Obama.
@@AnEvolvingApeHe’s not wrong, I don’t see why he should have been given a Nobel peace prize.
Look how lasting that effect has been…
@@HomeByTheSeas Yeah... Like man has many great qualities but a PEACE prize? nononono
@@HomeByTheSeas He isn't but he's still a complete piece of shit for denying climate science throughout this comment section.
@@AnEvolvingApe That's just weird.