Nobel Prize Winner Canceled by the IMF After Questioning Climate Change Data

John Clauser, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, is apparently the latest target of a cancel campaign. According to a group called the Co2 Coalition, Clauser was scheduled to speak to a group at the International Monetary Fund on climate change when critics spotted a serious problem: he does not support the accepted view on the subject. The response was all-too-familiar (even if less expected by Nobel laureates): Clauser had to be barred from sharing his scientific views or being heard by others at the IMF.

During the pandemic, dissenting scientists were regularly banned or canceled for questioning the efficacy of masks, suggesting a lab theory on the origins of Covid, raising natural immunity defenses, and other viewpoints. They have been largely vindicated. Yet, censorship remains commonplace even at universities and organizations like the IMF.

Clauser was reportedly guilty of questioning the reliability of the predictions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. So an organization of economists based on objective data and research decided to bar others from hearing countervailing views.

Clauser reportedly received an email from the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, who had seen a flyer for the zoom talk. It was immediately postponed. The natural default at the IMF and other organizations was to stop speech as potentially harmful when it does not comport with official viewpoints. It appears that Moreno and the IMF could not even tolerate a simple Zoom discussion that offered an alternative viewpoint.

Clauser has earned the ire of climate change advocates by calling the underlying scientific claims “dangerous misinformation” based on shoddy research. I can certainly see why that is not welcomed. However, rather than simply refute his views with their own data, these groups want to prevent others from hearing him.

The IMF has said little in the aftermath of the indefinite postponement. Why should it? The silence is precisely what it sought to achieve.

631 thoughts on “Nobel Prize Winner Canceled by the IMF After Questioning Climate Change Data”

    1. At what point do you allow disinformation continue unabated,

      Well, by challenging the climate change alarmist’s “settled science” dogma, it could reasonably be argued it is not continuing unabated. No respected scientist uses censorship to silence competing theories. They provide their own provable theories scientifically. The better argument rises to the top. And it remains there until a better theory is proven. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. The only time censorship is necessary is when there is a proven theory that cannot be disproven and that theory threatens some other, often hidden agenda.

      1. I kinda disagree…as one solution to climate change is for somebody to fund ( corralary some one else get rich) a giant shade in space …. while this physicist was simply going to point out none the sky is falling models actually deal with the albedo affect of more cloud coverage – which is the natural feed back loop of higher Temps. If any. But no one can make money off cloud tops.

      2. Dr John Clauser is not a climate scientist. He does not have a peer reviewed paper written on science. He is using his status to stir up confusion on global warming to touch the very hearts of the people who can’t understand physics well enough to really know he is lying.

        1. “Dr John Clauser is not . . .”

          Do you have an argument refuting his ideas, or just appeals to authority and ad hominem?

          1. He has written no peer reviewed papers on the subject. His work is in Quantum mechanics. I don’t see anything he has said that overturns the reality of climate change.

        2. “He does not have a peer reviewed paper written on science.”

          Anyone who talks like you is uninformed about peer review and science.

                1. No. You fail to understand what all are telling you. Peer review is not science, but you are letting peer review dictate science.

                  1. Peer review is a filter for science. Not any schmuck can get in. I have said peer is science. Peer review is a process in science and that professional fields use also.


                    Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (peers).[1] It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper’s suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review. It can also be used as a teaching tool to help students improve writing assignments.[2]

                    Henry Oldenburg (1619–1677) was a German-born British philosopher who is seen as the ‘father’ of modern scientific peer review.[3][4][5]

                    1. “Peer review is a filter for science. ”

                      You can say that, but science advances outside of what peer review considers correct. The poor use of peer review, seen in this instance, leads authorities to err, like those who insisted the earth was flat. Don’t be a flat earther.

                      In this case, the misuse of peer review caused the exclusion of expert opinion so those in power could stack the deck. They are no different than the flat earthers of the past.

                      Stop letting peer review dictate science. Science advancement bases itself on the outliers, not peer review.

                      The left is censoring everyone, and we see that censorship daily. The reason for such censorship is that thinking minds demonstrate the poor behavior of the left.

                    2. “All of science and professionalism uses peer review. So can you show climate peer review is corrupt?”

                      Science is not your forte. Peer review has been all over the map. The climate science that was drummed into your head is not legitimate. Most climate science is more iffy than the hard sciences because so many variables are out of our control. Fudge factors abound, and there is no computer fast enough to compute the variables if we even knew what they all were. If you follow climate science, you will see a continuous change in the fudge factors so that the equations meet with what people want to see.

                      Things are not the way you think they are.

                    3. Memorization isn’t the same as knowing science. Relying on censorship is not knowing science. Thinking peer review is science shows you don’t understand your chosen field.

                    4. Denying peer review as a process of science shows real basic ignorance of it all. You are basically clueless about climate science.

                    5. “Denying peer review as a process of science shows real basic ignorance of it all. “

                      I didn’t deny peer review as a process. I said it wasn’t science. That you need to misstate the written word and insult demonstrates your ignorance. If you read the other side, you first must state why it is wrong without using your conclusions as facts.

                      “You are basically clueless about climate science.”

                      You don’t know what I know about climate science or even geothermal energy discussed earlier. In that discussion, you demonstrated an inability to understand the entire picture. With climate science, you have adopted conclusions and used them as facts. That is worse than not knowing.

                    6. “You can get away with your ignorance here. In the real world?”

                      That is the type of stupidity that makes a person arrogant. There are two sides to this coin. You look only at one. If you were 100% correct, your grade would be 50, while those who study very little but deal with both sides of the coin can end up with a passing grade.

                      When you want to charge someone with ignorance, do so to the one who can only look at half of the picture. That is you.

                    7. You haven’t answered based in science on anything. You are only focused on me. Comes to science of climate, your discussion will continue to be factless.

                    8. “You are only focused on me. “

                      I am focused on your errors and total lack of knowledge of the opposing positions.

                    9. “Not really.”

                      Of course I focus on science. The problem is you focus on peer review and believe that is science. It’s a start for someone first starting to learn math.

                    10. You aren’t the arbiter of science. This is how I know you are entirely foolish in your argument. Peer review has been a part of science for several hundred years. I have already posted some of the history of peer review in acedemia.

                      Only in fox news type atmospheres can ignorance reign supreme. You are a true ignorance winner.

                    11. “You aren’t the arbiter of science. ”

                      I’m not. Science moves on without you, me, or peer review, causing your following comment to reflect more ignorance.

                      “Peer review has been a part of science for several hundred years. ”

                      Peer review is a tool. I’ve been a part of science most of my adult life. Many people on this blog have been a part of science, as they write scientific papers. They even might have gone through peer review, but the science under discussion was in the scientific paper, not the peer review.

                      “I have already posted some of the history of peer review in acedemia.”

                      I know. You parrot many things you do not understand.

                      “Only in fox news type atmospheres can ignorance reign supreme.”

                      Before you rated low on the stupidity index, just above idiot, but now you are delving into that territory.

                    12. You are good at not talking science and dodging it. talk to me. Tell me what you know about this collection of facts brought in by peer reviewed process. Or is it wrong because peer review was used.

                      Greenhouse gases are those gases in the atmosphere that raise the surface temperature of planets such as the Earth. What distinguishes them from other gases is that they absorb the wavelengths of radiation that a planet emits, resulting in the greenhouse effect.[1] The Earth is warmed by sunlight, causing its surface to radiate heat, which is then mostly absorbed by water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).[3][4][5]

                    13. “You are good at not talking science and dodging it. talk to me.”

                      I did regarding the most basic science. You made an A$$ of yourself, so why should I engage further? You thought peer review was science, geothermal energy caused zero carbon emission, and many other things mentioned by myself and others.

                      Your paraphrasing doesn’t impress me. I can probably teach a chicken to beat you at Tic-Tak-Toe.

                    14. No, we started at the lowest level and you flunked out. You want to repeat the questions and answers you were trained to parrot. Others have provided science and you could not handle any of the tidbits passed out.

                      Prove to Theresites, he is wrong. Your reply to him was ridiculous. Likewise your replies to John Say showed you to have a pea brain.


                    Submitting findings for peer review is literally a part of the scientific method.

                    From what looks like Rocks for Jocks at Gettysburg College:

                    “Scientists share the results of their research by publishing articles in scientific journals, such as Science and Nature. Reputable journals and publishing houses will not publish an experimental study until they have determined its methods are scientifically rigorous and the conclusions are supported by evidence. Before an article is published, it undergoes a rigorous peer review by scientific experts who scrutinize the methods, results, and discussion. Once an article is published, other scientists may attempt to replicate the results. This replication is necessary to confirm the reliability of the study’s reported results. A hypothesis that seemed compelling in one study might be proven false in studies conducted by other scientists. New technology can be applied to published studies, which can aid in confirming or rejecting once-accepted ideas and/or hypotheses.”

                    1. Submitting findings for peer review is literally NOT a part of the scientific method.

                      Do you left wing nuts ever get embarrassed by making incredibly stupid and poorly thought out claims.
                      Science is NOT a democracy. Truth is not determined by concensus. Nor by the experts.

                      The scientific method establishs truth by TESTING a hypothesis.
                      Truth is 100% reproducable ALL the time.

                      V ALWAYS equals IR
                      If that EVER proves not true then Ohms law is no longer valid science.

                      So called climate science is NOT reproducable. its forecasts are garbage.
                      No amount of Pal review can make that into science.

                      Galleleo was “peer reveiwed” and they said he was wrong – the earth was the center of the universe.


        3. Renewableguy,

          Peer review is not science. It is consensus thinking. Consensus is static, while outliers move science forward.

          You are stuck believing the consensus of the church while disbelieving and censoring Galileo.

          1. Peer review is not science. It is consensus thinking. Consensus is static, while outliers move science forward.

            You are stuck believing the consensus of the church while disbelieving and censoring Galileo.

            It is a process to weed out the mistakes and fraud. It is what keeps the charlatans out of the process so that the science process can move forward. Which the cimate science frauds have attempted to do. In a sense it is very successful.

            1. Peer review: “It is a process to weed out the mistakes and fraud.”

              Or, it is a process to protect biases and prejudices.

              If you only can deal with one point of view, you have no point of view.

              Do you trust Michael Mann?

                1. You can believe his check mark graph represents good science, but all that proves is that you believe in junk.

                  1. You aren’t the arbiter of what is good science and what is bad science. Dr. Clauser hasn’t proven himself and is associated with a FF funded group. His views are highly biased. And so are yours.

                    1. I don’t pretend to be an arbiter of science. You act like you are, but you lack knowledge of the subject matter.

                    2. I will not teach you as you cannot learn what you don’t know. Knowledge requires open minds.

                    3. Ok roger dodger. !!!!!

                      The more GHGs mainly co2 the temperature on earth rises, as temperature at the surface of the earth rises, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor. Water vapor is a GHG which causes the earth to warm even more. Earth has very strong positive feedbacks in climate.

                      I’m pretty sure you are bluffing and you don’t even have a clue, Nice try, Doesn’t work.


                      Some global warming ‘skeptics’ argue that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.

                    4. “Ok roger dodger. !!!!!”

                      Clever phrases do not create good engineers. Neither do unproven theories and slogans. You are creating dogma based on models that have failed and conclusions that are not proven. John Say explained part of the CO2 effect that puts your conclusions in question, but you continue jumping off the cliff.

                      To make things worse, one of your rebuttals is linked to a statement made by an anonymous person. You swallowed it whole. The science in that anonymous post was more incomplete than yours. You have used linkage again, along with “big words” so that you look like you know what you are talking about. You don’t.

                      Pro Tip: To prove a point, don’t use your theories as facts.

                    5. Science is what always works as predicted – it is repeatable.
                      If it is not – it is not science.

                      It is irrelveant what the source is, so long as every single time the asserting is tested it proves true.

                      CAGW does not.

                      There is no doubt the earth is warming – it has been for 250+ years.

                      There is significant doubt whether and to what extent humans have had an influence.

                      There is little doubt that the modern rate of warming is at best equal to that of the past 250 years, and more likely slightly less.
                      There is no doubt the earth is FAR from the warmest it has ever been.
                      There is also no doubt that a warmer earth is on net better for most things – and espeicially humans.

                      The left has promissed the arctic would be ice free for 30 years. Still has not come close to happening.

                      But if it ever did that would be a very GOOD thing for humans. Transporting goods from pacific to atlantic or visa versa would be dramatically improved. The benefits would be enormous.

                      At current rates it will take 200,000 years for Greenland to melt, and Antartica will likely have gained over the same time period.
                      Of course it is near certain that in a fraction of that time we will have another – hopefully mild ice age.

                      Warmists are correct – the earth has been colder for most of human existance.

                      Humans are 300,000 years old – human history does not start until about 3000 years AFTER the end of the last ice age.

                      Humanity did not thrive until the earth warmed.

                      To those who think global warming is a problem they should pray that we do not have the inevitable global cooling.

                      What is absolutely certain is that global temperatures have NEVER been stable. The past has been both warmer – for most of billions of years and colder for the past hundreds of millions of years.

                      As the past hundreds of millions of years go – we are in a small winfow of uniquely warmer condictions that have been necescary for the world we have in which humans thrive.

                    6. If we had no GHGs in the atmosphere, earth would be 0*F average temperature. This is reality chump.


                      Greenhouse gases are those gases in the atmosphere that raise the surface temperature of planets such as the Earth. What distinguishes them from other gases is that they absorb the wavelengths of radiation that a planet emits, resulting in the greenhouse effect.[1] The Earth is warmed by sunlight, causing its surface to radiate heat, which is then mostly absorbed by water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).[3][4][5]

                    7. The sign of absolute ignorance is when a person believes something he does not know of won’t happen.

                      Renewable, you are that person.

                    8. Site logo image JONATHAN TURLEY
                      New comment!

                      S. Meyer just commented on Nobel Prize Winner Canceled by the IMF After Questioning Climate Change Data.

                      In response to renewableguy:

                      If we had no GHGs in the atmosphere, earth would be 0*F average temperature. This is reality chump. Greenhouse gases are those gases in the atmosphere that raise the surface temperature of planets such as the Earth. What distinguishes them from other gases is that they absorb the wavelengths of radiation that a planet… Continue reading Untitled

                      The sign of absolute ignorance is when a person believes something he does not know of won’t happen.

                      Renewable, you are that person.

                      LOL. You are good at no facts. Otherwise, you didn’t respond to the core of the post.

                    9. You are not dealing with facts. You are dealing with snippets that, at best, cover only 50% of the discussion. 50% is a failure, and you don’t grasp most of it.

                      If you want to discuss facts, start dealing with predictions of climate emergencies that today are in the toilet. I’m not wasting my time answering your questions when due to censorship, you don’t know where you have failed.

                      You know very little, and most of what you know are slogans provided to you. Your understanding is near nil.

                      Did you note how vacuous your comment was on geothermal energy? That was an example of your inability to think and realize your statement was not intelligent. If you didn’t comment that you were an engineering technologist, the error would have been forgivable, but you said you were.

                    10. No science chops on you. GHGs are what keeps us warm enough. More GHGs and we get warmer. Its already coming out in the evidence. You don’t know how to keep to the science facts.

                    11. “More GHGs and we get warmer.”

                      A sign of linear thinking that can go no further. Hint instead of lines think logarithmic progression.

                    12. For every doubling of co2 we gain 3*C.
                      280 ppm co2 to 560 ppm co2 we gain 3 *C
                      560 ppm co2 to 1120 ppm co2 we gain 3*C
                      Should we be foolish enough to get to 1120 ppm co2, it is a destruction of the way of life as we know it today.

                    13. “For every doubling of co2 we gain 3*C.”

                      I like how you parrot things, but you get your numbers from the same people who have been in error for decades.

                      Since you think you are so smart in repeating unproven data (more like slogans) where the creators of the data have been continuously wrong, tell me how much CO2 is added to and remains in the atmosphere ( percent increase) by use of fossil fuels in America? I am asking for numbers, not your BS that says nothing.

      3. The IMF is not really the format for that kind of discussion to take place. Should he really have such earth shaking evidence, the proper place is in the science circles. So is there some point of view that world’s scientists missed that he is seeing? The IMF isn’t in a position to even discuss this. My experience is that the scientists that challenge the evidence are putting out crap with the blessings of fossil fuels in a nice fat check. He has the status to do so taking advantage of denier’s ignorance of the situation.

    2. Your characterization of different viewpoints as ‘disinformation’ is ‘disingenuous’ – a straw man argument. The advancement of knowledge is dependent on free and open debate. Otherwise we’re just left with the tyranny of ideology.

      1. So this is thought of advancement of knowledge? No. Its not. It’s stirring the muck of confusion so many deniers have trouble working their way through seeing clear.

    3. “. . . it is so dangerous to practice burning fossil fuels.”

      In 1860 the life expectancy was 40. Today it’s 80. In large part, you can thank fossil fuels for that extra 40 years of life.

      1. Added atmospheric co2 by humans reduces outflow of infrared energy to space that cools the earth. What doesn’t go into space makes the surface of the earth warmer. The evidence for this is quite strong. Clauser is either mentally ill or just plain lying.

        1. “Added atmospheric co2 by humans reduces outflow of infrared energy to space that cools the earth. “

          Do you believe such results of C02 increasing the temperature is linear or something else? Define the curve based on science.

            1. Good. If it is logarithmic advancing in the proper direction, then as CO2 increases its negative effects decrease.

              That is some of the things that many people engaged in climate change arguments don’t want to recognize.

                1. …And what was being said in the 1970’s? We could get colder. Almost all of these drastic events have proven to be wrong. Science is not something to be mixed with politics. That is what you are doing.

                    1. I can’t help it that the left cheats. Just like on this blog individuals from the left have many names and vote many times. The reason they have so many names is they become embarrassed after what they say conflicts with what they said before.

                    2. So, you believe Biden’s dealings are acceptable? OK. When you figure out what he has been selling to our enemies, let me know.

  1. Follow the science! Will American Academy of Pediatrics follow the lead of European countries? This will be a blow out politically.

    Doctors Group to Examine Guidelines for Treatment of Transgender Youths
    American Academy of Pediatrics board approves external review and could potentially revise policies

    In Europe, systematic evidence reviews have led to at least five European countries—the U.K., Sweden, Finland, Norway and France—to urge more caution in the use of puberty blockers and other medical interventions, noting that there isn’t enough evidence to support claims that the benefits outweigh the risks.


  2. Since a certain person named George J. Kamburoff showed up, the topic here has shifted from censorship/cancel-culture to climate science. Remember people the topic is censorship.

    Why shouldn’t a scientist be able to articulate his views, explain his reasoning, outline his evidence, and then have people judge him on the merit of what he said? If they disagree, they can explain why, using their own reasoning and any evidence they think material. Why shouldn’t that conversation take place? That’s the issue.

    1. One of the common refrains of those favouring censorship is that the censored person is not the right kind of expert. We saw this on Covid and we see it in relation to climate change. Physicists and energy specialists are said to be less worthy of being heard than climatologists, because they don’t have the requisite specialist knowledge. This rhetorical move eliminates criticism from anyone whose career does not depend on a steady stream of grants from governments and private interests whose agendas involve promoting climate catastrophism.

      1. Good point Daniel. There is likely a big pot of money behind people who come on this blog to push censorship.

      2. Daniel, your points, all of which are correct, reminds me of Michael Crichton’s real concerns about who can say what to whom about Climate Science™ and how public policy is created from hearing only cherry-picked data from one or just a few “experts”. If you’ve read this essay, then you already know. For those who haven’t, please consider the following…it’s long, but well worth reading.

        1. JAFO: Excellent selection.
          Way way down in your cited article is this statement:
          “Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science.”

          When debate, disagreement, or contrary views are eliminated, it’s easy to establish consensus, isn’t it?

      3. Daniel,

        Should NASA allow Kyrie Irving to speak about the flat earther movement? He is an expert basketball player. Let’s say a flat earth nonprofit wants to allow Kyrie to speak at a NASA event. Is it wrong for NASA to refuse?

        Kyrie’s basketball skills are excellent. But that doesn’t make him an expert on other topics. I think that it the problem here. Science is not a monolith. An expert in Astronomy may know very little about Paleontology. There is nothing wrong with a professional scientific organization wanting experts to limit their speeches to the topics about which they are… an expert.

    2. GK, renewal, Benson, and others are bearing “Witness” on behalf of their Religion in the hope to convert more heretics, nothing more. They aren’t interested in staying on topic, omfk. Nor are they interested in hearing *anything from anyone outside their bubble.

        1. Science is about seeking all opinions and evidence to determine if a theory can be proven – repeatedly. You’re behaving no differently than a religious zealot. Your Faith in fortunetelling-disguised-as-science is telling you to deny False Witnesses. What exactly, is scientific about silencing those who dare disagree with your Orthodox predictions?

          “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is … If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
          ― Richard Feynman

          1. Its what he is peddling. Its a fossil fuel point of view coming out of the CO2 coalition. Now this group is fossil fuel funded. A fact of bias that you are ignoring. Flat earthers are in teh boat as co2 coalition.

              1. show me his climate chops. Where is his climate science? Where is the peer review so someone can see his basis for his views. that is the science process.

                1. Apparently you’ve forgotten. Open-Ended Fallacies don’t work here. No one is required to respond, “How high?” just because you say, “Jump!”

                    1. You can’t argue against it because you’ve admitted you haven’t even read it.

                    2. You can’t produce it and I can’t find it. Where is it.

                      You have no idea what you’ve just proven. By canceling Clauser from speaking about his new climate change model, the IMF has denied you the opportunity to become more enlightened about a potentially important scientific theory that may improve economies, the lives of billions and technologies for a “sustainable” planet. But your default position is you’ve learned as much as you need to know (not scientific at all) and you would rather deny yourself and others the opportunity to become less ignorant. Kant described that immature state of mind as self-incurred tutelage.

                      Well done!

                    3. Oh I see. This guy is the nugget we have all been waiting for. Not. Hooking up with co2 coalition is like soiling your scientific pants. This is a case of who you collaberate with if people are going to take you seriously. The whole thing has a stink to it and you love it. Enjoy the stink.

                    4. This is a case of who you collaberate with if people are going to take you seriously.

                      Since you’ve abandoned science, what’s next; the guy’s racist? Went to to the wrong school? Spells his name weird? Doesn’t floss? Eats beef? He knows somebody who knows somebody who’s grandfather once beat his wife?

                      Here is you for all to see:


                    5. My background is science and obviously yours isn’t. Start with his premise so I can see for myself what he professes. I’ve been doing this for 17 years. Your messiah is here and it looks pretty hollow.

  3. Who does John Clauser think he is…a Nobel prize-winning physicist following the scientific method?

    1. Has he followed the scientific method with respect to climate science? If so, please link to said peer-reviewed paper?

      1. There is nothing in the scientific method about peer review (also known as pal review)

        Peer review is one of the worst things to happen to science.

        No scientific paper should be published without the work being REPRODUCED. That is the only criteria the scientific method requires.

        What has become evident is that the “peers” reviewing papers are NOT attempting to reproduce them.

  4. Obama is so terrified of global warming, climate change, and rising sea levels that he bought a waterfront house in Massachusetts.

      1. “Climate Change,” “Global Warming” and “Sea Level Rise” together constitute the new religion.

        Religion is the opiate of the masses according to Karl Marx.

        The antidote to wrong and undesirable opiates is communism.

        Of course, Karl.

        All roads lead to communism.

        “It doesn’t work if you don’t believe.”

        – Violet, “The Skeleton Key”

        Please ignore the fact that Dwarka in the Gulf of Cambay, India, is under 120 feet of water.

        You don’t suppose the climate has been changing, and global warming and cooling have been taking place for 4.6 billion years, do you?

        The universe will never stop changing.

    1. Don’t forget the mansion in Hawaii and his digs in D.C. replete with walls to keep unwanted people away. He magically travels to each of his palaces. He NEVER uses that stinky nasty fossil fuel.

    1. Feel free to ignore him if you want. Nobody’s stopping you. But why shouldn’t other people, who don’t want to ignore him, be blocked from hearing what he has to say and then judging for themselves?

      1. Can I ignore David B. Benson? I’ve got a bachelor’s in meteorology, master’s degrees in meteorology and oceanography and I was ABD in my doctorate program in numerical weather prediction (Osama bin Laden had something to do with that, but that’s not why I’m mad at him). What DBB just said is one of the most pathetically ignorant things I’ve ever read.

        1. Thersites — Then you should certainly know what the one actual error in Ray Pierrehumbert’s book is. Care to inform us?
          Also, just what was the global temperature during PETM? Was it much hotter than now?

          Don’t mistake meteorology and oceanography for climatology. That is common misunderstanding of the ignorasnti.

          1. Oddly enough, a great number of climatologists work in oceanography and meteorology departments. Have you ever taken a course in meteorology, oceanography or climatology, even at the undergraduate level? I thought not.

            While you’re at it, would you mind explaining to us how you would derive an equation for vorticity? You don’t have to show your derivation. In one sentence tell us how you’d approach the problem.

      2. Κansas Elder, go find what John Clauser has to say on the matter if you want to waste your time. The IMF has other matters to attend to.
        But if climatology interests you, I do suggest that you start with an elementary textbook. I did.

          1. Kansas Elder, I assume that they wanted to know what the latest IPCC report stated. Since John Clauser wouldn’t do that, he was ‘indefinitely postponed’.

    2. Precipitates out in 2 weeks? No all it needs is to hit the lcl to be a cloud. You confuse exactly the point….precip vs with cloud formation. Admittedly the higher the temp going up…..the longer for cloud formation. Elevated. But that cloud then remains longer before it precipitates. That was his point. The models he thought don’t address cloud coverage. Which they should. And maybe models that did wount have Greta so upset….or alarmed. The otherwise of his argument could be solar is no solution….bc more clouds. And you are worried about rain?

      1. Jaelyn, actually not. The clouds do not remain longer. Precipitation is controlled by raindrop formation.

        1. Precipitation is controlled by raindrop formation. Even if it’s snow, sleet, graupel or hail, I suppose.

          Hunger is controlled by how much you want something to eat.

          Tautologies can be fun!

      2. Good point. LCL or LFC, either would work. Davy needs to spend more time watching clouds roll by than be copying and pasting. Who knows? He might begin to understand how the atmospheric system works.

  5. I would rather stand by and watch man-made CO2 cause our coastal cities to be flooded by the oceans—assuming that CO2 can cause such a thing—than transfer our national sovereignty on CO2 emissions to an international governing body that doesn’t give a damn about America.

      1. GJK,
        Is that your entire response? Your entire argument?
        As a farmer, I am quite attuned to my environment.
        One year I had a drought so sever that one of my ponds went from a quarter acre pond to two large puddles. I just stocked it with bass and blue gill the year before.
        I have had years of harsh winters and others not so much.
        This summer I had a few days of extreme hot and weeks of cool. The other night I had to use a afghan to keep me warm. Note, I do not have AC. ‘
        We looked to have a great apple season. Until in late May we had to frosts. Apple season is gone. Black berry season is looking good.
        You can claim whatever you want, but us boots on the ground types might tell you, you are wrong and I got the numbers to prove it.

      2. “[E]njoy your Summer” without air conditioning and with spotty electricity, demand the climate Malthusians.

    1. I totally agree. And worse they use energy from earth to weather modify and burn through stratus xloud cover with harp. For this game. To wreck our countries sovereignty. But we own the weather. Remember that secdef. We own the weather. Probably the last half honest one. Until we let 21a aq ppl steal from us left and right. Circa 06. For flowers at the 705ths point of total fraud. And what is the mission of the 705? Stealing just stealing.

            1. I’m starting to think renwal should consider changing careers. Perhaps “Imperial Storm Trooper” would be a better fit. He keeps shooting wildly and blindly, yet never hits any target despite all self-proclamations he’s a good shot.

            2. Interesting. When considering extinguishing a fire with CO2 one should consider the following formula.

              2 Mg + CO2 -> 2 MgO + C

              The Oxygen has been stripped from CO2.

  6. What really is “Climate Change” or its earlier name “Global Warming”? It’s actually a Stalinist political movement to control and enslave the masses for the benefit of the elite. “Climate Change” is simply a modern version of Lysenkoism.

    Don’t know what Lysenkoism is? The term has come to be identified as any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically or socially desirable by an Authoritarian regime. The term aprtly descibes the “Climate Change” movement today.

    Here’s a little history. Lysenkoism was a politcal campaign led by Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko against genetics and science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century, rejecting natural selection in favour of a form of Lamarckism, as well as expanding upon the techniques of vernalization and grafting.

    More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were dismissed or imprisoned, and numerous scientists were executed in the Soviet campaign to suppress scientific opponents. The president of the Soviet Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, who had been Lysenko’s mentor, but later denounced him, was sent to prison and died there, while Soviet genetics research was effectively destroyed. Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines were harmed or banned.

    The government of the Soviet Union (USSR) supported the campaign, and Joseph Stalin personally supported it. Lysenko served as the director of the USSR’s Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Other countries of the Eastern Bloc including the People’s Republic of Poland, the Republic of Czechoslovakia, and the German Democratic Republic accepted Lysenkoism as the official “new biology”, to varying degrees, as did the People’s Republic of China for some years.

      1. GJK, nobody disputes that climates will change over time. The issue is whether those changes are attributable to manmade enterprises. There is zero evidence supporting the bogus concept that fossil fuel production is causing the climate to change. The hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 134F (56.7C) in July 1913 at Furnace Creek, California. The fossil fuel industry’s production then was insignificant. And that’s only what’s been recorded. “Climate Change” is just a modern version of Lysenkoism. The punishments in the Lysenkoism era were, admittedly, more extreme than they are today. But, rest assured, the Global Elite isn’t satisfied with mere censorship and blacklisting. The Global Elite is working hard on plans to implement Lysenkoist punishments as they deem necessary to compel obedience. That should make you very happy.

      2. “Enjoy your summer.”

        Meanwhile, some of the Scandinavian countries are experiencing the *coldest* summer temperatures in their histories.

        It’s quite a racket when you get to focus only on those parts of the picture that confirm your conclusions, and where whatever happens (to the *weather*) also confirms your conclusions.

        Heads, climate Malthusians win. Tails, human life loses.

  7. “Leaked climate change emails scientist ‘hid’ data flaws”

    Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based. A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced. Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue. Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones’s collaborator, Wei-­Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had “screwed up”.

    – The Guardian, 2/1/10

      1. I understand your hesitancy in using older data, none of it from the pro-doomers’ data or analyses have held-up over any amount of time.

        OTOH, It’s newer than what you’re offering.

      2. @George J Kameltoe,

        That was what is known as climategate where the climate change scientists fudged the data because it didn’t fit their narrative.


  8. You wonder when JT is going to get real and denounce the Dems and declare he has moved over to be an independent. Sooner or later they come for everyone. The have come for JT and Dersh, They have come for Musk and RFK Jr. All huge hero’s to the left till they stepped out of line and stood for Democracy. As Trump says they are a sick bunch. The Repubs are sick to. Tucker interview now leaked with Capital Hill top cop laying out the crimes of the DOJ clowns on Jan 6h and now Tucker saying he will interview him again. Repubs have the flu. Dems have Double Pnuemonia. The same folks who brought us all the Covid lies are bringing the Green New Deal to a theatre near you. They are trying to destroy the world and bring their version to you. The world is buried in debt and they want to raise the cost of living for the final kil’ shot.

  9. What is Science?
    The study of the structure and behavior of the physical world: watching, measuring, and experimenting in the development of theories.

    What is a theory?
    Theories are based on rules and ideas that may explain facts or events expressing an opinion or explanation.

    The basic principle of science is nothing is static or absolute, and given the nature of the Universe and the unknown unknowns, there is no avenue available for mankind to make any definitive statement to a final conclusion.

    That being said the IMF’s (International Monetary Fund) refusal to hear differing opinion on Global Weather is counter to the study of science and their mission ‘seeking answers to the cause and effect of the monetary policies and investments they are responsible for’.

    The IMF has now instituted the 21st century’s inquisition (banning scientists) like Galileo of the 17th century. Like Galileo Clauser is being accused in so many words of “vehement suspicion of heresy”.

    Tyranny has it grips on the world’s institutions (my way or the highway)!

    God help us All!

    1. George,

      There is another way to study these questions.

      What is science? Analysis of dark dimensions:
      You’re traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination.

      What is a theory? A hypothesis based on a premise.

    2. His field is quantum entanglement, which is NOTHING like the Environment.
      Why do you assume a specialist in one field is competent in another?

        1. There is nothing in the physical or natural sciences as complex as environmental studies. It is graduate level science and organizational work, including environmental law, environmental economics, analysis of energy systems.

          The climate exists within the bounds of a Stable State as the resultant (not result), of the interactions between complex and powerful systems. Our injection of greenhouse gases has destabilized the Stable State and now it will oscillate between extremes until it finds a new Stable State. It may not be conducive to human habitat.

          1. LOL! “Stable state”? Since when? Climate has been changing like crazy for a long time–little ice age, Medieval warming period, etc. Stable my behind.

              1. “was limited and local.”

                Maybe you can learn. Everything depends on where you put the thermometer and how you record the data.

          2. Our injection of greenhouse gases has destabilized the Stable State and now it will oscillate between extremes until it finds a new Stable State. It may not be conducive to human habitat

            You threw out a good sounding word salad. Its is entirely useless to the discussion.

            The facts show the weather/climate, in its natural state, has always been chaotic with wild swings. What we have been experiencing from WWII till 2000 was an extremely rare time of calm, that is now reverting back to normal. chaotic.

            1. “You threw out a good sounding word salad.”

              Good for you! That’s exactly what it is.

              And it’s a perfect example of their favorite tool of deceit:

              “They muddy the water, to make it seem deep.” (Nietzsche )

          3. It sounds like George is in head-to-head competition with David B. Benson for the Argle-bargle of the Year award!

            1. I’ll try again.
              The climate is the resultant (not result), of interactions between complex systems carrying massive amounts of energy. It exists within the bounds of a Stable State due to the interactions. But our injection of greenhouse gases has perturbed this state, and now the Climate will oscillate between extremes until if finds a new Stable State. It may not be conducive tohuma habitat.

              1. Okay.
                So then what is a Stable State when my part of America was once under a glacial Ice Age? And that has occurred more than a few times.
                What about the other times when the earth was not under a Ice Age but rather the opposite with a greenhouse like effect prior to man or the Industrial Revolution?
                The JPL has determined that the West was a desert prior to the 20th century (Lewis and Clark said the same). The 20th century was a unusually wet period. It is now reverting back to it desert state.
                So, if man made greenhouse gases have perturbed this state, then would it not make sense to revert global society to a pre-Industrial Revolution like society? Say the mid to late 1800s?

      1. @George J Kameltoe:

        He has the ability to look at the data, look at their statements and call out their nonsense.

        To put this in different terms…

        The earth has a magnetosphere which protects up from cosmic radiation along w solar flares.
        Yet when you ask a ‘Climatetologist’ what is the impact of the shifting of the earth’s magnetic poles on the environment…. you get crickets.

        I guess those scientists never took an emag course. Or realized that the earth is a spheroid and not a sphere among other things.

        There’s more but its that simple fact that makes me always question these so called scientists.

        Then there’s the issue of deforestation of the rain forest and its impact on North America’s weather.

        Oh so much more …

        1. Do you think they are stupid and unenlightened? Only one with little science would assume that.
          What have you done?

      2. He’s only asking questions. Does your field of expertise allow you to criticize an individual that wants simple answers? What makes your experience better than his?

      3. George, all the talking heads on television lecture us all day long about myriad issues they’re not experts on, and it’s predominantly leftwing finger wagging. If you can get them to shut up, we can talk to Dr. Clauser.

        Good luck with that.

      4. George J Kamburoff
        Your statement ‘…a specialist in one field is competent in another?’ is suspect.

        We could harken back to Laplace’s or W.C. Kneale’s [range theories of probability] and have the same inconclusive theory as any Environmental theorist. Data is data no matter who is presenting the data. Theory is supposition, acquired from data.

        1. Finding meaning in the data is the most important art. Those in entanglement are not qualified to make authoritative statements on the environment, no matter what you want to think.
          Would you trust a dentist to diagnose your stomach problems??

          1. “Would you trust a dentist to diagnose your stomach problems??”

            Would you trust a doctor who used questionable data and wouldn’t let you obtain other opinions?

          2. Would you trust a dentist to diagnose your stomach problems?

            Would you trust an economic organization to decide which scientific views to censor and which not to?

            1. Would you trust an economic organization to decide which scientific views to censor and which not to?

              Mic drop!

              Excellent, oldman.

          3. George K
            Yet you make a statement: “July was the hottest world temperature ever measured.
            Tell me climate change is not real.” As measured against what, years, centuries, eons? The Earth is dynamic and has had many evolutions. Today’s environmentalists run about seeking normalcy to a past not knowing if today climate is normal or abnormal over earth’s history, just that its changing and they don’t like it.

      5. George K,

        No one scientist is an expert in all parts of climatology and the physics involved. No one person has that capability, but some are experts at looking at numbers, taking note of false numbers. I would not exclude physicists from the discussion, no matter what branch of physics they deal with. All credible questions must be raised and answered.

        The climatologists you support are providing theories. They remain theories if they don’t pass the rigor of proof. Proof requires hearing all sides. That the climatologists you support wish to censor prominent scientists demonstrates that your climatologists are hacks.

    3. George @ 12:16

      You posted a comment: God help us All!

      Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

      There are a lot of dirty rotten sinners, but a remnant shall be saved.

    4. George: incisive comment. The totalitarian temptation. It’s apparently hard to resist these days, and it infects many if not most of our most important institutions. Now it’s Economics via the IMF that has been weaponized to shut down differing views. Good grief! But I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. The Law has been weaponized for some time and regularly criminalizes political differences; Education at all levels has been weaponized to banish any thought that doesn’t comport with the correct view of things; Journalism and the Media, with a few exceptions, positively detest differences of opinion and have largely become siloed echo chambers. Serious inquiry and debate, no matter the field, is now always and everywhere subordinate to political considerations. Somehow, and for reasons I don’t entirely understand, our institutions are suffering from an intellectual and moral rot. It doesn’t augur well for us.

        1. George. Many thanks for the good wishes. So far, my summer has been enjoyable. In any case, my comment, which was admittedly prolix, was not a comment on “the science,” which I don’t pretend to understand, but a comment on how free speech and debate are increasingly out of fashion. In a previous comment, I believe you yourself said that “There is nothing in the physical or natural sciences as complex as environmental studies.” If that is the case, I would think that there might be a wealth of uncertainties that had yet to be worked out, i.e., that “the science” was not precisely settled. And if so, wouldn’t free and open debate involving a range of responsible views be necessary?

      1. July was the hottest world temperature ever measured.
        Tell me climate change is not real.

        1. “July was the hottest world temperature ever measured.”

          Climate alarmists scold us for conflating weather and climate. Yet when it satisfies a desire, they conflate weather and climate.

          Theirs is neither science nor the scientific method. It is nihilistic propaganda.

          Incidentally, for significant parts of the Earth, that statement is false.

  10. The truth is out there and FBI agent Mulder is getting new messages from the cancer man.

  11. related to medical science and the politicization therein…

    An Infectious Disease physician out of a very reputable medical center, Univ of Alabama at Birmingham, Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, was named to replace Dr Anthony Fauci at NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (>$6 Billion budget). Sadly she is a continuuation of the politiczation of medicine. Disappointing.

    Who is Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo? Colleagues praise Alabama doctor tapped to replace Fauci

    🎵 Meet the new boss, same as the old boss 🎵

        1. Open-ended fallacies won’t work on us, GK. The mid-1930’s have the record for hottest temps for the longest duration, at least since daily measurements started in earnest in the 1880s. NOAA records start in 1948. The only way you can claim this summer is the warmest is by ignoring pre-NOAA data. But you, I, and everyone who pays attention to history already know that.

  12. In modern American politics, here is a sure sign of a massive hoax – you are prevented from questioning it.

  13. Once again, without knowing it, the Bug admits the truth. He says:

    “At least Clauser was cancelled for his incomplete science on climate change rather than for just being who he is….
    Kind of like, well, me on this blog comments section. ”

    In other words, the IMF canceled Clauser because of his views, political or otherwise. Political views did not cause The Bug’s cancelation. It was Bug’s uncivil behavior and foul language, something The Bug refused to change after warnings.

    Uncivil behavior caused The Bug’s cancelation, which has nothing to do with his factless, erroneous, and dumb responses.

    The next thing Bug has to fess up to is his habit of lying. The Washington Post and the leftist Bible did that, so there is always hope.

    Thank you, Bug, for once again proving my case.

  14. It is a cult or a religion that cannot be questioned or challenged in any form. It is the antithesis of science. It is the antithesis of freedom and free speech. Imprisoning the mind is worse than imprisoning the body.

      1. Why is it silly? Galileo faced similar problems to what Manuel is saying. Today, now that the censors can’t lock us up, kill us, or censor our thoughts, we know what Galileo was talking about.

  15. Sammy: Did you miss the part about the fact that it was economists, -not climate science experts, who were responsible for canceling him?
    Please read the third paragraph, supra. The good professor notes, “So an organization of economists based on objective data and research decided to bar others from hearing countervailing views.”

Leave a Reply