July 14, 2023. Nobel Laureate Physicist Calls Climate Emergency
a “Dangerous Corruption of Science”
/by James Murphy/ https://thenewamerican.com/nobel-laureate-physicist-calls-climate-emergency-a-dangerous-corruption-of-science/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:05:45 AM UTC-7, israel sadovnik wrote:

July 14, 2023. Nobel Laureate Physicist Calls Climate Emergency
a “Dangerous Corruption of Science”
/by James Murphy/ https://thenewamerican.com/nobel-laureate-physicist-calls-climate-emergency-a-dangerous-corruption-of-science/

Well using the word "corruption" depends on what you regard as "science".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

israel sadovnik wrote:

July 14, 2023. Nobel Laureate Physicist Calls Climate Emergency
a “Dangerous Corruption of Science”

Even using the word "Science" here grants it undue credit. It's a
hoax, propaganda BEGINNING WITH the fairy tale that the earth
is even warm, or that it would be a bad thing if it got warmer.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723347629580419072

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 04:15:08 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<[email protected]> wrote:

israel sadovnik wrote:

July 14, 2023. Nobel Laureate Physicist Calls Climate Emergency
a “Dangerous Corruption of Science”

Even using the word "Science" here grants it undue credit. It's a
hoax, propaganda BEGINNING WITH the fairy tale that the earth
is even warm, or that it would be a bad thing if it got warmer.

Specify what you mean by "warm".

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Glenn wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:05:45 AM UTC-7, israel sadovnik wrote:

July 14, 2023. Nobel Laureate Physicist Calls Climate Emergency
a “Dangerous Corruption of Science”
/by James Murphy/

https://thenewamerican.com/nobel-laureate-physicist-calls-climate-emergency-a-dangerous-corruption-of-science/

Well using the word "corruption" depends on what you regard as "science".

----------------------------------

And a physicist (OMG, he got a Nobel Prize) pontificating on climate science
is about as interesting as the weatherman pontificating on string theory.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 10:10:46 AM UTC-4, Dexter wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:05:45 AM UTC-7, israel sadovnik wrote:

July 14, 2023. Nobel Laureate Physicist Calls Climate Emergency
a “Dangerous Corruption of Science”
/by James Murphy/

https://thenewamerican.com/nobel-laureate-physicist-calls-climate-emergency-a-dangerous-corruption-of-science/

Well using the word "corruption" depends on what you regard as "science".

----------------------------------

And a physicist (OMG, he got a Nobel Prize) pontificating on climate science is about as interesting as the weatherman pontificating on string theory.

As a former climate scientist I disagree in principle. Many people in my field came from
other disciplines, engineering, mathematics, physics, chemistry. While there is a lot of
information to pick up, anyone with a solid grasp of classical physics and mathematics
has a good start on the field (a limited amount of QM helps as well).

However, he claims that clouds will prevent GW. Not only does this not seem to be happening, but
clouds have been a part of general circulation models for over 40 years now (and to some degree
before then). I myself worked on implementing a cloud model in a GCM in the early
1980s.

So he must be claiming that these models are wrong, and that he has the only correct physical
model of clouds. Well, if so, let him present, let him publish. He has plenty of time to get an
abstract into the American Geophysical Union conference in December, where he can present
and defend his work. If that's too rushed, there are other conferences, or AGU in 2024.

If he is honest, he will present. One of the people mentioned in the link also had a climate
model that allegedly showed the temperature to be relatively insensitive to CO2 levels.
We are still waiting for that one, though he is long retired.

His submission would certainly be accepted by AGU. I've attended talks by Singer,
McIntyre, and Reed Bryson, to name three "skeptics". (To be precise, the Bryson talk was at NASA). He'd best come prepared to answer questions, though.

If he doesn't present his work, then indeed he is just pontificating.

Not that I have anything against bridge-priests.

William Hyde

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery wrote:

Specify what you mean by "warm".

Nothing has changed. The Holocene is colder than the Eemian,
sea level today is significantly lower.

...during the Eemian, roughly 130,000 years before human
civilization, it was hotter. There was less ice. There was what
is called thermal expansion. Sea level was roughly 5 meters
higher -- about 16 feet or a little more.

Presently the earth is colder than was experienced during the
Medieval Warm Period or even the Roman Warm Period. It's
colder than about 5k years ago, what is generally regarded as
the period of "Climate Optimum"... that's when it ended, btw.

The 5k years ago is when it ended.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722829763403743232

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 11:40:46 AM UTC-7, William Hyde wrote:

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 10:10:46 AM UTC-4, Dexter wrote:

Glenn wrote:

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:05:45 AM UTC-7, israel sadovnik wrote:

July 14, 2023. Nobel Laureate Physicist Calls Climate Emergency
a “Dangerous Corruption of Science”
/by James Murphy/

https://thenewamerican.com/nobel-laureate-physicist-calls-climate-emergency-a-dangerous-corruption-of-science/

Well using the word "corruption" depends on what you regard as "science".

----------------------------------

And a physicist (OMG, he got a Nobel Prize) pontificating on climate science
is about as interesting as the weatherman pontificating on string theory.

As a former climate scientist I disagree in principle. Many people in my field came from
other disciplines, engineering, mathematics, physics, chemistry. While there is a lot of
information to pick up, anyone with a solid grasp of classical physics and mathematics
has a good start on the field (a limited amount of QM helps as well).

However, he claims that clouds will prevent GW. Not only does this not seem to be happening, but
clouds have been a part of general circulation models for over 40 years now (and to some degree
before then). I myself worked on implementing a cloud model in a GCM in the early
1980s.

So he must be claiming that these models are wrong, and that he has the only correct physical
model of clouds. Well, if so, let him present, let him publish. He has plenty of time to get an
abstract into the American Geophysical Union conference in December, where he can present
and defend his work. If that's too rushed, there are other conferences, or AGU in 2024.

If he is honest, he will present. One of the people mentioned in the link also had a climate
model that allegedly showed the temperature to be relatively insensitive to CO2 levels.
We are still waiting for that one, though he is long retired.

His submission would certainly be accepted by AGU. I've attended talks by Singer,
McIntyre, and Reed Bryson, to name three "skeptics". (To be precise, the Bryson
talk was at NASA). He'd best come prepared to answer questions, though.

If he doesn't present his work, then indeed he is just pontificating.

Not that I have anything against bridge-priests.

You didn't even bother to read the cited article!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)