Earlier this month, the 2022 Nobel Physics Laureate Dr. John Clauser slammed the ‘climate emergency’ narrative as a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people”. Inevitably, the punishments have begun. A talk that Dr. Clauser was due to give to the International Monetary Fund on climate models has been abruptly cancelled, and the page announcing the event removed from the IMF site.
Dr. Clauser was due to speak to the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office this Thursday under the title: “Let’s talk – How much can we trust IPCC climate predictions?” It would appear that “not a lot” isn’t the politically correct answer. Clauser is a longstanding critic of climate models and criticised the award of the Physics Nobel in 2021 for work on them. He is not alone, since many feel that climate models are primarily based on mathematics, and a history of failed opinionated climate predictions leave them undeserving of recognition at the highest level of pure science. Not that this opinion is shared by the green activist National Geographic magazine, which ran an article: “How climate models got so accurate they won a Nobel.”
Last week, Clauser observed that misguided climate science has “metastasised into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”. This pseudoscience, he continued, has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other related ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies and environmentalists. “In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis,” he added.
Clauser is the latest Nobel physics laureate to dismiss the notion of a climate crisis. Professor Ivar Giaever, a fellow laureate, is the lead signatory of the World Climate Declaration that states there is no climate emergency. It further argues that climate models are “not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. The 1998 winner Professor Robert Laughlin has expressed the view that the climate is “beyond our power to control” and humanity cannot and should not do anything to respond to climate change.
The Australian climate journalist Jo Nova was in fine form reporting on Clauser’s recent comments. “The thing about sceptical Nobel Prize winners is that they make the name-calling ‘climate denier’ programme look as stupid as it can get,” she observed. She noted the lack of any mainstream media interest in Clauser’s recent comments, asking: “How much damage would it do to the cause if the audience finds out that one of the highest ranking scientists in the world disagrees with the mantra?” A question of course with an obvious answer. Quite a lot.
The same team that tells us that we must ‘listen to the experts’ won’t listen to any experts they don’t like. They rave about ‘UN Experts’ that hide the decline, but run a mile to avoid the giants of science. They’ll ask high-school dropouts about climate change on prime-time TV before they interview Nobel Prize winners. It’s a lie by omission. It’s active deception. And the whole climate movement is built on it.
The IMF is heavily involved in international money flows and one can only hope it shows a greater willingness to ‘evaluate’ this subject matter than it does the predictions of climate models. Dr. Clauser secured his Nobel Prize for groundbreaking work in the field of quantum mechanics – the study of matter and light at a sub-atomic and atomic level. In 2010 he was awarded the Wolf Prize in Physics, considered the second most prestigious physics award after the Nobel. In addition to this work, he has also made suggestions as to how to improve current climate models.
Attempts to model the chaotic and non-linear atmosphere suffer on many fronts. They fail to predict future temperatures with mostly laughably degrees of inaccuracy, and in the process do little more than guess the effect of natural forces such as volcanoes and clouds. In Clauser’s view, climate models greatly underestimate the effect of the clouds that cover half the Earth and provide a powerful – and dominant – thermostatic control of global temperatures. More recently, Clauser also told the Korea Quantum Conference that he didn’t believe there was a climate crisis, noting: “Key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by approximately 200 times.”
The cynical might add that this degree of exaggerated inaccuracy might be fine in the land of economics, but more robust standards should be encouraged in the world of science.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I guess we should be grateful to the IMF for making it so clear that Dr Clauser was bang on target with his critique of the $cientific propaganda “climate crisis” scam.
And any country that wants/needs “money” from the IMF? (eg most in Africa).
Forget it – unless you toe the line on climate change, mRNA jabs, digital currency, freedom of speech, etc.
Interesting from Edward Dowd – the whole shit show is because The RPTB ie the Banking Families (mostly Jewish and that’s a Fact) can no longer print ever more money to rescue themselves from the mob, ie us thinkers, so they’re going to destroy the world so they can rise from the ashes.
It used to be did it not, that—– The Truth Will Set you Free? ———-Except now the truth gets you cancelled, ostracised, pilloried and sacked. No wonder truth seekers wait till they retire to speak some truth, where it is too late now to sack them.– To the Liberal Progressive Social Engineer there is only one truth —-Theirs. Whether it is race, gender, equality, diversity or climate, they are the ones who own the truth. No other truth (opinion) is acceptable or spitting fury will ensue. It must have been a nightmare for Galileo and Copernicus and so it is today with the Leftist Inquisition.
‘…..research shows that the more information partisans get, the deeper their disagreements become.’
‘…..being better at math made partisans less likely to solve the problem correctly when solving the problem correctly meant betraying their political instincts. People weren’t reasoning to get the right answer; they were reasoning to get the answer that they wanted to be right.’
‘”Nothing any ordinary member of the public personally believes about the existence, causes, or likely consequences of global warming will affect the risk that climate changes poses to her, or to anyone or anything she cares about,” Kahan writes. “However, if she forms the wrong position on climate change relative to the one that people with whom she has a close affinity — and on whose high regard and support she depends on in myriad ways in her daily life — she could suffer extremely unpleasant consequences, from shunning to the loss of employment.”
And there you have it.
It’s called: ‘(Identity) Protective Cognition: “As a way of avoiding dissonance and estrangement from valued groups, individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values.”
‘How politics makes us stupid’ Vox Apr 2014
What are the defining values of the IMF regarding climate change?
‘Climate change presents a major threat to long-term growth and prosperity, and it has a direct impact on the economic wellbeing of all countries.
The IMF has a role to play in helping its members address those challenges of climate change for which fiscal and macroeconomic policies are an important component of the appropriate policy response.
The Fund publishes research on economic implications of climate change and provides policy advice to our membership to help them capture the opportunities of low-carbon, resilient growth.’
IMF.org
The biggest funder of the IMF? That would be the U.S.A., run by the ‘climate emergency’ chicken little Democrats.
He who pays the piper etc. or, in other words, identity protective cognition.
But, as we have seen from Uxbridge, once the silly climate panic bills start arriving on the doorstep, reality in the shape of democracy intervenes…….and Biden is now phenomenally unpopular……
Up-tick Watch. 127 for rtsc, 89 for varmie, just 7 for you. Hmmn. Let’s see how it plays out.
btw, who is boss of the IMF these days?
LOL! The same people who have always been the boss…. America!….as they are the biggest net contributors…..surprise!!!
The current president of the IMF is Bulgarian Kristalina Georgieva, an environmental economist who was Vice-President of the European Commission under Jean-Claude Juncker from 2014 to 2016. In 2021, an independent inquiry determined that Georgieva had instructed staff at the World Bank to inflate data to make China look better during her tenure as Chief Executive.
The IMF might not be our friend.
It is good to see the mainstream commentariat approaching all these issues based on the “if I have my fingers in my ears I won’t hear anything I don’t want to” interpretation of science.
Hmm – a Nobel Prizewinning scientist! Must have something useful to teach us. Better cancel him.
It seems to me that he is broadly correct. The use of terms like “emergency” and “crisis” with regard to the weather & the climate are psychological problems. Nothing to do with our influence on the real world’s meteorological behaviour. A lot of it is pretty close to fraud, relying on the audience’s trust in them, while manipulating the definition of long standing definitions etc. For the avoidance of doubt, I’m thinking about global conditions to do with the weather, not local environment issues to do with pollution etc.
Fool…..just ……Follow The Science™️ or remember to Move At The Speed Of Science™️….but for God’s sake don’t Question The Science…!!
The pimply students at Fact Checker Central know best….!
Doesn’t the fool bloke know doing his own research is Dangerous….?
Forbes…”You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes To Science”
Harvard…”Support for “doing your own research” may be an expression of anti-expert attitudes rather than reflecting beliefs about the importance of cautious information consumption.
CNN….these four words are helping to spread vaccine (or put any word here) misinformation..’do your own research…’
New York Times….sceptics say do your own research..it’s not that simple…
can he not read??
Nobel Prize…..pffft….!!
Greenhouse Gases are not causing warming. Adding 1 billion people every 11 years, equivalent to 100 Londons*, building 100’s of concrete heat trapping mega-cities, slashing and burning critical rainforests, these are much more likely to warm the planet than life-sustaining beneficial gas Carbon Dioxide or cow flatulence.
I think we miss a trick when we attack the mad, hugely expensive, economy crippling, potentially murderous Net Zero policies of The West by not acknowledging that there is some human caused change in the climate. It might be best to point out more likely causes (see first paragraph) and somehow hope that governments realise that population growth control and management of forests will go much further than their pea-brained Net Zero nonsense in stabilising the environment.
*See most temperature weather maps of the UK and 90% of the time London is the warmest. Concrete absorbs and traps heat.
“Greenhouse Gases are not causing warming. Adding 1 billion people every 11 years, equivalent to 100 Londons*, building 100’s of concrete heat trapping mega-cities, slashing and burning critical rainforests, these are much more likely to warm the planet than life-sustaining beneficial gas Carbon Dioxide or cow flatulence.”
Inherently contradictory.
How so? The globalists are throwing trillions at a non existent problem, namely the lowering of so-called “greenhouse gas” concentrations. CO2 levels are at fairly normal levels, cow farts are not destroying the planet.
If humans ARE causing global warming it’s only because of the rapid proliferation of concrete heat trapping mega-cities (Sun energy absorbed by the concrete and released over time) and the destruction of cooling forests.
In the meantime there is nothing done about the very real issue of out of control population growth, almost all of it occurring in the countries that can least afford it and out of which said populations will exodus to escape poverty in order of magnitudes much greater than we currently see. We will be one of their prime destinations.
The clothes worn by Dr Clauser in the photo at the top of this article tells me that he must be taking a mid-July holiday in Norfolk this year….
The problem with climate computer models is that the people working on them decide what answer they want from them, and distort the data input to give the answer they want. How many computer modelling results have proven to be wrong over Covid, and now equally or even less accurately on climate? Come on, we all know the answer to that, so why are idiots in government basing policies on them? The green industry, financed by massive government subsidies taken from our taxes, has a vested interest in publicising the rubbish results from these models and opinions of scientists biased by their funding from the so-called green industry while shutting down top independent scientists who are telling the truth about climate.
Today, Monday, from the BBC website, in need of proper fact checking:
Real-time Global Temperature
(updated every 1-2 minutes)
57.44°F / 14.13°C
Deviation: 0.24°F / 0.13°C
Stations processed last hour: 61101
Last station processed: Cordova, United States
For source/info see:
https://temperature.global
Now tell me that is the problem, the last 150 years are graphed here
?resize=720%2C437&ssl=1
Do you see a problem, I don’t?
I am becoming increasingly concerned about TV debates, especially on GB News. They are all biased debates because they never have a scientist on the programme. All they do is give publicity to those promoting climate alarmism.