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 )
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?
@@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.
@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.
Okay, the guy is over 80, so normally, I would say to go easy on him. However, he is a Nobel Prize winner and climate science is serious business, so i say that Sabine is doing the right thing and doing all of us a service.
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..
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.
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.
"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
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.
If someone is awarded a Nobel Prize for their contributions to scientific research, does that automatically make them a thought leader in all aspects of science?
They'd like to think so. But in reality it causes something called "Nobel Disease'.
Місяць тому
Only if it gets them more government grant money.. Gee, I will get $5 million dollars to do more studies that agree with the political agenda or $0 if I disagree even if I am right.. Which will I choose????? The climate has been changing like the tectonic plates have been moving for billions of years so yes "there is climate change".. Is man really at fault for it, maybe a little from clear cutting billions of trees and building huge heat generating cities that pump megawatts of RF energy into the air.. Does the government have technology that could fix most industrial pollution?? Why yes but they would rather spend billions fining corporations and driving them out of the USA instead of helping engineer clean processes and give low interest loans to those companies to build that stuff..
Do notice that he never published these findings in any peer reviewed journal, because the reviewers would highlight all his mistakes and reject his submission. Instead he decided to make a public presentation out of it, hoping that he can just coast on his credentials in another field instead of actually going through the scientific process with this. This is exactly what all the "anti mainstream science" pseudoscience gurus do, like Graham Hancock, Nassim Haramein, or religious apologists such as Kent Hovind, Ken Ham etc. Obviously those guys have no scientifc credentials at all, but it's disappointing to see actual scientists go the same route when their motivated reasoning leads them to think they're right and that there's a big conspiracy among scientists in the field to hide the truth.
Clauser won his Nobel Prize for work done over FIFTY YEARS ago in 1972, in a field totally unrelated to climatology, which has its very own set of definitions and mathematics, that are very unique to atmospheric sciences. I have a bachelor degree in this field myself, and know, how misleading and confusing the nomenclature and traditional graphs can be to outsiders, including physicists, as I started in physics myself. The displayed disrupted speech pattern, from a now 81 year old, makes one suspect, he has a bit of a mental coherence problem. It is time, we quit listening to old people with obvious dementia, especially, when it comes to delicate scientific and life-critical contexts!
dislike. check your wording. old people deserve love and attention just like anyone else. your wording implies that old people should never be listened to, and thoroughly disregarded in the sciences. why would you let yourself get mad over someone's brain deteriorating, or really, someone being wrong for any reason. everybody should be LISTENED to. cared for. attended to. understood, enough, to at least share the moment of understanding. all words are precious, and can be verified later after recording. there is no divine sin of being wrong at science. we were placed here on a world that is wrong and confusing, to understand the chaos-fabric of our world. and you are mad about old people. lul. ⚸
Yeah his brain doesn't seem in top shape, but that doesn't mean that it's not a hoax, lot's of other scientists who do have their brain still intact still say it's a hoax too.
The first paragraph is a very fair and balanced assessment, the second one is why so many high profile scientists - from successful fields of science - are drawn to the conclusion that climate science is a scam. This isn't anything beyond an ad-hom.
@@iidoyila_live_ He said " old people with obvious dementia", not old people in general. I think you're reacting without taking the time to understand his point - and I think you'll probably now react to me pointing that out, but so it goes. Some people do suddenly deteriorate, at a certain age, and it becomes very noticeable to those around them who have known them a long time, especially relatives.
“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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
It somewhat surprises me that someone capable of winning a noble prize would not be able to appreciate that the failure to successfully measure something accurately enough does not necessarily mean that it's not there. The asserition that it speeds up the rotation rate of the earth is interesting (I hadn't thought of it and I can't really understand by what mechanism) but *that* is something that should be easily measurable and indeed if it had occured I'm pretty sure in a world of GPS and atomic clocks someone would have noticed. There are feedback loops but anyone who has studied geology knows that climate has varied hugely over the time the earth has been around.
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.
@@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?
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.
‘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?
"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.
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.
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.
I'm not a scientist, but I'm interested. I find Sabine to be very informative, and at times hilarious. I trust her to explain things truthfully and the case with this video debunk erroneous ideas. Thank you Sabine.
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.
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'm 76. If he were my older brother I'd see if I could talk him into seeing a neurologist for an evaluation. He gives off the same signals of belligerent cognitive impairment that we have seen in other public figures who rearrange reality to fit what they can remember and comprehend. Maybe Sabine could have a quiet chat with his family.
@@cwpv2477 what is your point? You're reacting to a remark about dementia, assuming that researchers on climate change do not take heat cycles into account and don't state anything. I'msure that a group of 1000 Ph.D.'s can come up with the notion to correct for heat cycles. Besides, when they are so slow we can't measure a current change, how come we are measuring climate change?
His speech immediately reminded me of 1. someone I know with brain damage from drug abuse 2. watching a friend have an episode of psychosis 3. beligerent alcoholics
Whatever these physicists say "global warming" aka "climate change" is 100% BS. Canada is already monetizing this "crisis", not letting it go to waste. People are just dumb sheep.
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.
Yes the issue is that Nobel winners tend to be old because they progressed though decades to get into a Nobel situation so statistically some will have dementia well underway by the time of the prize being awarded.
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.
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.
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.
@@erikrodenborg7646 What climate hysterics are pushing is not reality. That is the reason why while they are telling us we are heading for mass extinction, we are actually doing better than ever.
@@erikrodenborg7646 When people are told that the climate has changed so much that life is on the verge of extinction, yet life seems to be doing better than ever, something doesn't add up.
≈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?
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.
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.
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
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.
I think they should sue him for slander. Showing individual names on papers and then calling them a hoax and liars without proof that they are dishonest. Disagreement of a theory is not the same as calling someone a liar. He may be a genius, but I don’t know if he understands the law.
Proof in science is very different than proof in a court of law. Science requires repeatable empirical evidence, whereas a courtroom requires a witness or other evidence. The legal definition of truth is weaker than the scientific version.
Other great presentation, Sabine 😊 Taking a step back from all the models, there is less than 8km of breathable atmosphere above sea level, 8km seems almost nothing in the scale of earth, and any hydrocarbon pollution in this zone is scary!
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.
"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...
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
I think what we were all witnessing was a brilliant scientist's cognitive decline. The sad thing is it will only get worse. Just listening to Clauser's tone of voice, inflection and delivery sounded like something was amiss. His argument was everyone is dishonest and they are all lying sounds like paranoia.
Sadly so. His senile ramblings are not doing any favors to science in general ... even though the basic point is correct: modeling clouds and water vapor is likely the biggest weak point in the models.
If I am not mistaken almost all great scientific breakthroughs happened in the first 40 years of each scientists life. I wonder if prior to dementia there is a rigidity of thought that precludes groundbreaking work while in the their mind, they are still that great thinker of their youth.
Pardon me sweet pea. In order to be doing science you actually have to be following the scientific method. That requires experimental reproducibility. Do you have any?
@@throwaway692 First, Clauser has to present his. He has none, and he's going up against the 99.9% consensus of publishing climate scientists who do. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Eleven separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. ELEVEN. Look them up by lead author on Google Scholar: Oreskes, 2004; Doran, 2009; Anderegg, 2010; Cook, 2013; Verheggan, 2014; Stenhouse, 2014; Carlton, 2015; Consensus on Consensus (multiple); 2016; Powell, 2018; Myers, 2020; Lynas/Houlton, 2021. In 2021, Cornell University surveyed the over 88000 climate studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving today's climate change. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree. Over 80 academies of science and every scientific institution on earth, from NASA to NOAA to the World Meteorological Organization to the over 50,000 physicists in the American Physical Society publicly endorse the consensus position, which is precisely why every nation on earth is a card-carrying member of the IPCC. See JOHN CLAUSER, THE LATEST CLIMATE SCIENCE-DENYING PHYSICIST, at the Skeptical Science website for a complete dismantling of his talking points. See also CLAUSER-OLOGY: CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS, at the RealClimate website. Also: CLIMATE CHANGE IS A MYTH: A NOBEL PRIZE WINNER'S EMBARRASSING IDEAS" at Sabine Hossenfelder. Hey, it's a free country, you want to be different and feel special, maybe feel that you're brilliant because you choose to go with the 0.1% of dissenters, by all means hitch your wagon to oil industry shills, debunked scientists and crackpots.
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.
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.
There are several topics on which I disagree with Sabine. But I consider her an honest broker on scientific issue, someone who makes great effort to get at what is true and what is not. It is gutsy to take on a Nobel laureate in physics. But because her integrity, I find the presentation convincing. I guess this is another example one spouting utter nonsense when pontificating on an issue outside of one's expertise.
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.
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… 😂
Another inspiring video, thank you! I love your "dry" sense of humour! One might despair about the disinformation which infests the social media, but with your well formulated and structured talks, there seems to be some hope. ❤
We are so lucky to have UA-cam and great physicists like you. For the first time, we all truly have access to the sausage making and discussion. Thank you!
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.
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.
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
Within 3 mins you manages to explain climate change to me, in a way, I understand completely! Something no other individual has been able to, THANK YOU!
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.
I live in China and my wife often refers to the fact that when she was a child the hottest summer days were about 30C for one or two days a year. Currently we are experiencing temperatures in excess of 40C and another week at this temperature is anticipated. The time difference is about 35 years.
That’s weather not climate. Also gets down to your location if it’s rural or urban. China has constructed a lot of roads and high rise buildings which add to the urban island heat effect. You also had record snow falls last winter which gave us our longest and coldest winter in 15 years. Other things to consider is if you’re having a hot spell and somewhere else is having a cold spell they balance out. My hottest summer was 1988 over 100 days above 37 degrees C with 42 days above 40 degrees C . End of the day over the last 12000 years we’ve had about 9000 years where the temperature was around a degree C warmer than present while co2 was around half NOAA data set.
@@nigelliam153 a trend is not "weather". The OP was comparing the typical weather in summer 35 years ago with the typical weather now. The trend in temperature is clear.
@@mikeholling8830Not interested in the debate, and there were certainly a lot of very high temperatures 111 years ago. But just wanted to point out that lots of meteorologists think that that particular record was due to a dodgy thermometer enclosure.
Clauser is a quantum physicist who has apparently taken up meteorology as a hobby in his old age. It passes the time. Also, he'll be 82 in December and he has emphysema. So, (1) he's making pronouncements about a subject in which he has no expertise, and (2) his brain is deteriorating from a lack of oxygen and probably also from other consequences of aging. Sad.
Dude has adopted Trump speech mannerisms. I see this fairly often with elderly peoples with developing dementia. I dont say this to be snarky, but he is probably progressing with vascular dementia
Ya I understand that "get off my lawn" vibe. I don't understand many modern ideas. I was not raised with "systems" thinking. I can kind of understand it but I will never Grok it. I long for dials, knobs, and switches. Rebooting will always be done at the shoe store.
@@kennethreese2193 I saw Trump using the same mannerisms over a decade ago. You don't actually see that associated with dementia, but the same people that want to say a quantum physicist isn't qualified to discuss climate change will also make their own claim about diagnosing someone without ever meeting them.
So: You shouldn't measure global warming by how much warmer the globe is getting, but instead use this much simpler method. But since that method is really complex and difficult, it proves there is no change. :| I'm not sure I've ever seen a more embarrassing straw man argument. Thanks Sabine for calling out the BS.
Hello Sabine, I am not a scientist. But as many of unsuccessful wannabe scientists I became a businessman. And I understand simple business law 'demand & supply'. Such theories exist because there is demand for such theories irrespective of the reality. Now I buy theories those suite me and print them in the paper I own. That gives me some satisfaction of revenge (evil grin). Well, additionally as I businessman I don't waste my money. I use that theory to buy another swanky jet and a coal mine in Africa. See you in the next science conference.
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
Climate change is no myth. I've been alive long enough to notice how much things have changed. I remember back in the 80's, back in my childhood it never got un-bearably hot during the summer, just nicely warm, and in winter there was plenty of snow. Compare that to now where every summer is like being in a furnace, and every winter it never freezes or gets any snow. Even in the early 2000's things weren't as bad as they are now.
@@edmunns8825 I was born in 51 and so old enough to have been alive in the last cooling cycle. But anyone can look up the 60 year cycle for themselves.
Of course it isn’t a myth. Climate changes… it’s the beauty of tagging it all climate change. It’s a beautiful umbrella to make money, launder it and distribute it, and you can’t argue any of the “data” or you’re immediately canceled.
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 know a few smart experts whose expertise drives them towards overconfidence and stubbornness. I think an ability to argue well can drive people to hold into poor positions because they can successfully convince others and themselves, and eliminate doubt. The rational but difficult thing to do is to apportion ones beliefs in accordance with the weight of evidence - which means holding positions lightly.
His Nobel prize is for what he did 50 years ago, and he is now 81 years old. How brain chemistry and subconsciousness affects consciousness, really is a powerful thing, and there is little pop science education on those issues. My mom has schizophrenic paranoia. It's is mind buggling how normal her reasoning skill seems to be while holding absolutely ridiculous belief. The recent Terrance Howard situation is likely also a mental health issue that very few science educator points out. Old people sometimes have drastic temperament chance and hold extreme believe likely due to decay of the brain. While such pattern need to be said with caution and shouldn't be disqualifying to the argument. However, it's also an important fact that people should learn so they make better decisions about the elderlys.
The fact that he would believe heat would just magically turn unto angular momentum in this one particular moment but nowhere else in time tells you everything you need to know to reject all, his argunent and his conclusions. Anyone who would take him seriously must not have the perception or education to notice this obvious error.
As the zesty rotates, the denser air is moved by the orioles forces-much like trying to walk on a turning merry go round-both horizontally and vertically.the results in 3-D are really phenomena and contribute strongly to weather dynamics.
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 )
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 😅
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?
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...
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.
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.
Okay, the guy is over 80, so normally, I would say to go easy on him. However, he is a Nobel Prize winner and climate science is serious business, so i say that Sabine is doing the right thing and doing all of us a service.
he's right
@@mrossknewell bros, its conclusive. This guy says he’s right
Yes.
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..
"You might think the biggest energy sink on Earth is moral outrage on Twitter"
but it turns that energy into a lot of hot air
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
"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.
Informative, entertaining, direct, and fascinating, as usual. Keep this stuff coming Doc.
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
"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.
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.
If someone is awarded a Nobel Prize for their contributions to scientific research, does that automatically make them a thought leader in all aspects of science?
They'd like to think so. But in reality it causes something called "Nobel Disease'.
Only if it gets them more government grant money.. Gee, I will get $5 million dollars to do more studies that agree with the political agenda or $0 if I disagree even if I am right.. Which will I choose????? The climate has been changing like the tectonic plates have been moving for billions of years so yes "there is climate change".. Is man really at fault for it, maybe a little from clear cutting billions of trees and building huge heat generating cities that pump megawatts of RF energy into the air.. Does the government have technology that could fix most industrial pollution?? Why yes but they would rather spend billions fining corporations and driving them out of the USA instead of helping engineer clean processes and give low interest loans to those companies to build that stuff..
I see you fail to bring any actual evidence. What a dumb troll.
It made Obama a man of Peace while he was running out of bombs to drop on weddings.
Do notice that he never published these findings in any peer reviewed journal, because the reviewers would highlight all his mistakes and reject his submission. Instead he decided to make a public presentation out of it, hoping that he can just coast on his credentials in another field instead of actually going through the scientific process with this.
This is exactly what all the "anti mainstream science" pseudoscience gurus do, like Graham Hancock, Nassim Haramein, or religious apologists such as Kent Hovind, Ken Ham etc. Obviously those guys have no scientifc credentials at all, but it's disappointing to see actual scientists go the same route when their motivated reasoning leads them to think they're right and that there's a big conspiracy among scientists in the field to hide the truth.
"Oceans- those are all the blue parts on the globe." Sabine, you kill me!
It's so easy to forget that there are U.S. of Americans across the pond you'all.
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?
Clauser won his Nobel Prize for work done over FIFTY YEARS ago in 1972, in a field totally unrelated to climatology, which has its very own set of definitions and mathematics, that are very unique to atmospheric sciences. I have a bachelor degree in this field myself, and know, how misleading and confusing the nomenclature and traditional graphs can be to outsiders, including physicists, as I started in physics myself.
The displayed disrupted speech pattern, from a now 81 year old, makes one suspect, he has a bit of a mental coherence problem. It is time, we quit listening to old people with obvious dementia, especially, when it comes to delicate scientific and life-critical contexts!
dislike. check your wording. old people deserve love and attention just like anyone else. your wording implies that old people should never be listened to, and thoroughly disregarded in the sciences. why would you let yourself get mad over someone's brain deteriorating, or really, someone being wrong for any reason. everybody should be LISTENED to. cared for. attended to. understood, enough, to at least share the moment of understanding. all words are precious, and can be verified later after recording. there is no divine sin of being wrong at science. we were placed here on a world that is wrong and confusing, to understand the chaos-fabric of our world. and you are mad about old people. lul. ⚸
Yeah his brain doesn't seem in top shape, but that doesn't mean that it's not a hoax, lot's of other scientists who do have their brain still intact still say it's a hoax too.
So if it's not his subject, why should we listen to Sabine.
The first paragraph is a very fair and balanced assessment, the second one is why so many high profile scientists - from successful fields of science - are drawn to the conclusion that climate science is a scam. This isn't anything beyond an ad-hom.
@@iidoyila_live_ He said " old people with obvious dementia", not old people in general. I think you're reacting without taking the time to understand his point - and I think you'll probably now react to me pointing that out, but so it goes. Some people do suddenly deteriorate, at a certain age, and it becomes very noticeable to those around them who have known them a long time, especially relatives.
“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.
“I’m afraid a week from now the only thing you’ll remember from this video is that breast clouds are a thing”.
I’ve never felt so seen, Sabine. 😂
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.
@@cjwrench07what trial was it. Maybe your mum was right.
@@Jeremy64444was it the OJ Simpson trial? Then yeah, maybe
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 ? 🎪
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
I am very glad, Sabine, that you were able to articulate his point(s) better than he was . . .
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
"... the Oceans - You know, all the blue parts on the globe" - LOL
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.
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.
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.🙄
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.
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
It somewhat surprises me that someone capable of winning a noble prize would not be able to appreciate that the failure to successfully measure something accurately enough does not necessarily mean that it's not there.
The asserition that it speeds up the rotation rate of the earth is interesting (I hadn't thought of it and I can't really understand by what mechanism) but *that* is something that should be easily measurable and indeed if it had occured I'm pretty sure in a world of GPS and atomic clocks someone would have noticed.
There are feedback loops but anyone who has studied geology knows that climate has varied hugely over the time the earth has been around.
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.
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?
"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.
Always interesting to get an overview on the physics of our climate. Good job and keep up the good work.
"which I'm telling you just so that my 3 years of Latin are finally good for something" Made my day xD
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.
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
Speeds up the rotation of the earth 😂😂 what a space cadet.
"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.
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.
Following Dr. Clauser’s reasoning regarding cloud cover then Venus is in fact a temperate paradise…
Well all Venusians are flying creatures living at the top of the atmosphere so it's pleasantly coolish (though they use considerable Sunscreen lotion)
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.
I'm not a scientist, but I'm interested. I find Sabine to be very informative, and at times hilarious. I trust her to explain things truthfully and the case with this video debunk erroneous ideas. Thank you Sabine.
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!
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.
😂😂😂
I'm 76. If he were my older brother I'd see if I could talk him into seeing a neurologist for an evaluation. He gives off the same signals of belligerent cognitive impairment that we have seen in other public figures who rearrange reality to fit what they can remember and comprehend. Maybe Sabine could have a quiet chat with his family.
Spot on.... It's very sad
Just as the the earth is gonna burn up tomorrow group.
people should really study ice ages and heat ages and earth sun cycles which are far too slow to be noticable on modern measuring in most cases
@@cwpv2477 what is your point? You're reacting to a remark about dementia, assuming that researchers on climate change do not take heat cycles into account and don't state anything.
I'msure that a group of 1000 Ph.D.'s can come up with the notion to correct for heat cycles. Besides, when they are so slow we can't measure a current change, how come we are measuring climate change?
His speech immediately reminded me of
1. someone I know with brain damage from drug abuse
2. watching a friend have an episode of psychosis
3. beligerent alcoholics
Clearly his intellect has dissolved long before his ego...
LOL - that's true for all of us !?
Whatever these physicists say "global warming" aka "climate change" is 100% BS. Canada is already monetizing this "crisis", not letting it go to waste. People are just dumb sheep.
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.
Yes the issue is that Nobel winners tend to be old because they progressed though decades to get into a Nobel situation so statistically some will have dementia well underway by the time of the prize being awarded.
"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 )
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.
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.
Thank you for this video. Debunking climate deniers is very important.
Important for who? Climate hysterics?
@@willmont8258 If you want to put the label "climate hysteria" on those who accept reality well... that is indeed tragic. .
@@erikrodenborg7646 What climate hysterics are pushing is not reality. That is the reason why while they are telling us we are heading for mass extinction, we are actually doing better than ever.
it's all a money scam!!!!!!
@@erikrodenborg7646 When people are told that the climate has changed so much that life is on the verge of extinction, yet life seems to be doing better than ever, something doesn't add up.
≈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?
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 Trite crap can't even spell "allowed". This should tell you everything you need to know about the random sock puppet.
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"
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
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.
I think they should sue him for slander. Showing individual names on papers and then calling them a hoax and liars without proof that they are dishonest. Disagreement of a theory is not the same as calling someone a liar. He may be a genius, but I don’t know if he understands the law.
ua-cam.com/video/PkAYnkpYADs/v-deo.html
yes I think so too! get this bullshit up in a court once and for all but they will not will they? do you know why?
Proof in science is very different than proof in a court of law. Science requires repeatable empirical evidence, whereas a courtroom requires a witness or other evidence. The legal definition of truth is weaker than the scientific version.
He doesn't seem to understand much except his own physics, to be frank
@@OR10777BE you mean ignorance?
Funny how JFC is both his name, and how I’m reacting 😂
Other great presentation, Sabine 😊
Taking a step back from all the models, there is less than 8km of breathable atmosphere above sea level, 8km seems almost nothing in the scale of earth, and any hydrocarbon pollution in this zone is scary!
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?
"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...
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.
He wouldn't make a good teacher - he's grating in even this little bit....
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
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.
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!
He sounds pretty unhinged even for someone with Nobel disease and a lot of them are very unhinged.
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
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
I think what we were all witnessing was a brilliant scientist's cognitive decline. The sad thing is it will only get worse. Just listening to Clauser's tone of voice, inflection and delivery sounded like something was amiss. His argument was everyone is dishonest and they are all lying sounds like paranoia.
It sounded like the ravings of a mad man!
Sadly so. His senile ramblings are not doing any favors to science in general ...
even though the basic point is correct: modeling clouds and water vapor is likely the biggest weak point in the models.
If I am not mistaken almost all great scientific breakthroughs happened in the first 40 years of each scientists life. I wonder if prior to dementia there is a rigidity of thought that precludes groundbreaking work while in the their mind, they are still that great thinker of their youth.
It’s like the demented person forgets where he left his car and then accuses his wife of stealing it.
We need to issue Clauser a Dunning-Kruger gold card. He has earned it.
Pardon me sweet pea. In order to be doing science you actually have to be following the scientific method. That requires experimental reproducibility. Do you have any?
@@throwaway692 First, Clauser has to present his. He has none, and he's going up against the 99.9% consensus of publishing climate scientists who do. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Eleven separate studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. ELEVEN. Look them up by lead author on Google Scholar: Oreskes, 2004; Doran, 2009; Anderegg, 2010; Cook, 2013; Verheggan, 2014; Stenhouse, 2014; Carlton, 2015; Consensus on Consensus (multiple); 2016; Powell, 2018; Myers, 2020; Lynas/Houlton, 2021.
In 2021, Cornell University surveyed the over 88000 climate studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity, not nature, is driving today's climate change. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree.
Over 80 academies of science and every scientific institution on earth, from NASA to NOAA to the World Meteorological Organization to the over 50,000 physicists in the American Physical Society publicly endorse the consensus position, which is precisely why every nation on earth is a card-carrying member of the IPCC.
See JOHN CLAUSER, THE LATEST CLIMATE SCIENCE-DENYING PHYSICIST, at the Skeptical Science website for a complete dismantling of his talking points. See also CLAUSER-OLOGY: CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS, at the RealClimate website. Also: CLIMATE CHANGE IS A MYTH: A NOBEL PRIZE WINNER'S EMBARRASSING IDEAS" at Sabine Hossenfelder.
Hey, it's a free country, you want to be different and feel special, maybe feel that you're brilliant because you choose to go with the 0.1% of dissenters, by all means hitch your wagon to oil industry shills, debunked scientists and crackpots.
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...🤦
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.
There are several topics on which I disagree with Sabine. But I consider her an honest broker on scientific issue, someone who makes great effort to get at what is true and what is not. It is gutsy to take on a Nobel laureate in physics. But because her integrity, I find the presentation convincing. I guess this is another example one spouting utter nonsense when pontificating on an issue outside of one's expertise.
This is so sad. Seeing a once great mind turn to porridge.
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
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… 😂
Another inspiring video, thank you! I love your "dry" sense of humour!
One might despair about the disinformation which infests the social media, but with your well formulated and structured talks, there seems to be some hope. ❤
We are so lucky to have UA-cam and great physicists like you. For the first time, we all truly have access to the sausage making and discussion. Thank you!
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
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.
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
Within 3 mins you manages to explain climate change to me, in a way, I understand completely! Something no other individual has been able to, THANK YOU!
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.
I live in China and my wife often refers to the fact that when she was a child the hottest summer days were about 30C for one or two days a year. Currently we are experiencing temperatures in excess of 40C and another week at this temperature is anticipated. The time difference is about 35 years.
That’s weather not climate. Also gets down to your location if it’s rural or urban. China has constructed a lot of roads and high rise buildings which add to the urban island heat effect.
You also had record snow falls last winter which gave us our longest and coldest winter in 15 years. Other things to consider is if you’re having a hot spell and somewhere else is having a cold spell they balance out. My hottest summer was 1988 over 100 days above 37 degrees C with 42 days above 40 degrees C .
End of the day over the last 12000 years we’ve had about 9000 years where the temperature was around a degree C warmer than present while co2 was around half NOAA data set.
The hottest temperature ever recorded was 111 years ago…just saying.🥵
@@nigelliam153 a trend is not "weather". The OP was comparing the typical weather in summer 35 years ago with the typical weather now. The trend in temperature is clear.
@@mikeholling8830 the hottest temperature where?
@@mikeholling8830Not interested in the debate, and there were certainly a lot of very high temperatures 111 years ago. But just wanted to point out that lots of meteorologists think that that particular record was due to a dodgy thermometer enclosure.
Clauser is a quantum physicist who has apparently taken up meteorology as a hobby in his old age. It passes the time.
Also, he'll be 82 in December and he has emphysema.
So, (1) he's making pronouncements about a subject in which he has no expertise, and (2) his brain is deteriorating from a lack of oxygen and probably also from other consequences of aging.
Sad.
Dude has adopted Trump speech mannerisms. I see this fairly often with elderly peoples with developing dementia. I dont say this to be snarky, but he is probably progressing with vascular dementia
Ya I understand that "get off my lawn" vibe. I don't understand many modern ideas. I was not raised with "systems" thinking. I can kind of understand it but I will never Grok it. I long for dials, knobs, and switches. Rebooting will always be done at the shoe store.
@@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4yd she's not making any assertions. He is.
His speaking style reminds me of my cranky old uncle at family get togethers. Everyone is always moving around to avoid him. 😂
@@kennethreese2193 I saw Trump using the same mannerisms over a decade ago. You don't actually see that associated with dementia, but the same people that want to say a quantum physicist isn't qualified to discuss climate change will also make their own claim about diagnosing someone without ever meeting them.
I'll eventually catch up on the math. Please just keep the jokes coming.
So: You shouldn't measure global warming by how much warmer the globe is getting, but instead use this much simpler method. But since that method is really complex and difficult, it proves there is no change. :|
I'm not sure I've ever seen a more embarrassing straw man argument. Thanks Sabine for calling out the BS.
Hello Sabine, I am not a scientist. But as many of unsuccessful wannabe scientists I became a businessman. And I understand simple business law 'demand & supply'. Such theories exist because there is demand for such theories irrespective of the reality. Now I buy theories those suite me and print them in the paper I own. That gives me some satisfaction of revenge (evil grin). Well, additionally as I businessman I don't waste my money. I use that theory to buy another swanky jet and a coal mine in Africa. See you in the next science conference.
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
"Sure grandpa, let's get you to bed"
LOVE to see who Clauser is getting his $$$-Money from... 😈😈😈
yes, me too. I suspect there is money involved. or maybe just manipulation of an old guy with an easily flattered ego.
He is on the board of the CO2 Coalition fossil fuel propaganda group of shills & cranks.
Probably somewhere like the Heritage Foundation
Climate change is no myth. I've been alive long enough to notice how much things have changed. I remember back in the 80's, back in my childhood it never got un-bearably hot during the summer, just nicely warm, and in winter there was plenty of snow. Compare that to now where every summer is like being in a furnace, and every winter it never freezes or gets any snow. Even in the early 2000's things weren't as bad as they are now.
It’s a 60 year cycle.
@@MsBiggles51 How could you know that? You're only 51 years old Ms Biggles.
@@edmunns8825 I was born in 51 and so old enough to have been alive in the last cooling cycle. But anyone can look up the 60 year cycle for themselves.
Of course it isn’t a myth. Climate changes… it’s the beauty of tagging it all climate change. It’s a beautiful umbrella to make money, launder it and distribute it, and you can’t argue any of the “data” or you’re immediately canceled.
@@MsBiggles51 Well then, you do indeed have the data. Have a nice day Ms Biggles.
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 know a few smart experts whose expertise drives them towards overconfidence and stubbornness. I think an ability to argue well can drive people to hold into poor positions because they can successfully convince others and themselves, and eliminate doubt.
The rational but difficult thing to do is to apportion ones beliefs in accordance with the weight of evidence - which means holding positions lightly.
His Nobel prize is for what he did 50 years ago, and he is now 81 years old.
How brain chemistry and subconsciousness affects consciousness, really is a powerful thing, and there is little pop science education on those issues. My mom has schizophrenic paranoia. It's is mind buggling how normal her reasoning skill seems to be while holding absolutely ridiculous belief. The recent Terrance Howard situation is likely also a mental health issue that very few science educator points out. Old people sometimes have drastic temperament chance and hold extreme believe likely due to decay of the brain.
While such pattern need to be said with caution and shouldn't be disqualifying to the argument. However, it's also an important fact that people should learn so they make better decisions about the elderlys.
The fact that he would believe heat would just magically turn unto angular momentum in this one particular moment but nowhere else in time tells you everything you need to know to reject all, his argunent and his conclusions.
Anyone who would take him seriously must not have the perception or education to notice this obvious error.
As the zesty rotates, the denser air is moved by the orioles forces-much like trying to walk on a turning merry go round-both horizontally and vertically.the results in 3-D are really phenomena and contribute strongly to weather dynamics.
“As the Earth rotates, that is.”
@@tobyw9573 no... zesty is perfectly accurate...
Seems like a Dunning-Kruger effect to me
How sad to see another Noble prize winner take the Montagnier path. Old age can be really cruel.