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.
From sam
Otherwise provide examples . . .”
Don’t you know? It’s called magic energy. It is energy created by a something-or-other, which something-or-other requires no physical materials, consumes no energy during its manufacturing, and does not need to be transported or maintained.
I think there’s a patent for it, titled something like: perpetual motion machine.
Wires deliver straight to your home in less than a second. Renewable Energy and storage. Overproduce on RE and fill in the gaps with storage when it runs low.
“Wires deliver straight to your home in less than a second. Renewable Energy and storage. Overproduce on RE and fill in the gaps with storage when it runs low.”
All of which require massive amounts of fossil fuel inputs.
Renewable energy is not reliable.
Renewable energy does not take into consideration of recycling costs.
Storage technology has not matured to kept up with demand. And seeing the issues of batteries catching fire I would not want one in my home. Nor would I want to have a massive batter bank storage facility near me.
The better solution is to reduce our carbon footprint, reduce our energy needs, get off of this green energy pipe dream.
Renewable energy is not reliable.
Evidence says otherwise. Texas massive power outage failure was natural gas.
IRT insurance, Will Insurance Costs Derail The EV Revolution?
https://realclearwire.com/articles/2023/08/02/will_insurance_costs_derail_the_ev_revolution_970320.html
I already own a Tesla Model S. The insurance is affordable.
ATS,
Clearly you did not read the article.
Fires of ICE vs EVs….. 50 times the ICE compared to EVs.
Climate “scientists” predict . . .
They have been saying the exact same thing for some 60 years, and were spectacularly wrong.
Why do some keep swallowing their junk predictions?
They are quite accurate on temperature trends. Especially the IPPC.
In response to S. Meyer:
Though I agree this is one of those reincarnations, I don’t think it is Jeff. Does it matter? No. Does it matter if you are watching rerun #100 or #101? No.
Agreed. Although, you have to admit he’s nailed Jeff’s cadence, smugness and oversized ego. Twins, perhaps? ����
You poor babies. Get your act together and learn some science instead of pretending you know the stuff.
Life gets better without fossil fuel burning.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/shenango-coke-works
Cardiovascular ER Visits Plunged After Pittsburgh Coal Plant Shut, Study Finds
“Our analysis adds to the growing body of scientific evidence that policies implemented to regulate and reduce fossil fuel-related air pollution have real public health benefit,” said a study co-author.
You do know that Coal is Not the only Fossil Fuel ?
I doubt you know that humans switched to coal because the so called renewable fuels of Wood and Dung which are STILL the most common fuels in the world are far worse.
We switch to coal a bit less than two centuries ago because it was CLEANER and HEALTHIER.
The ACTUAL history of energy – and many other things, has been Humans over time CHOOSING cleaner source of energy, of living over dirtier ones as our standard of living rose so that we could afford them.
The reason that much of the world still uses dung wood or coal for heating and cooking is because that is what they can afford.
In the US if you destroy standard of living – as the left is agressively trying to do – we WILL return to using Coal, Dung and wood.
We switched to coal because it was cleaner than wood or dung – I doubt you know – but several centuries ago in London the overwhelming majority of homes, back yards and basements were filled with human excrement. Human schiff was actually a product. People collected it and dried it and sold it to burn to cook and heat. There was so much schiff in london that you could not put a plate of food down for seconds without it being covered by flies.
We switched from Coal to Oil because it was cleaner – not cheaper – coal is still about 1/3 cheaper per BTUH than most any other fuel. We switched from oil to natural gas – because that is cleaner. We will likely switch to all electrice living because that is cleaner.
I have no problem with that – few do. But each of those transitions came at a cost and required our standard of living to be sufficient for people to CHOOSE to do so.
We did not switch from wood to coal – because government mandated it, or coal to oil or oil to natural gas.
We did so because our individual human values drove us and because our standard of living was high enough that in conjunction with our values we made that choice – individually on our own.
I noted that the cost of energyu from Coal is cheaper than any other form. But we are STILL seeing conversions to Natural Gas for power generation for purely economic reasons – because cthe raw cost per BTUH is not the only cost factor.
A coal power generating plant takes days to power up and days to power down and when it is running it must generate power -whether that power is needed or not. Natural Gas has become more price competitive as a result of Fracking and has the advantage that you can turn a gas turbine off and on in minutes not days. Coal is to a very large extent still the baseline powersource throughout the US With Nuclear being very similar. But Natural Gas is becoming the primary on demand source of power generation. for economic reasons.
Regardless, you and I are each free to use whatever fuel we want. Buy whatever car we want.
Or atleast that is how it SHOULD be. If only YOU were so enlightened.
One last point – IO have not read your claim – but MOST claims like that tend to be bogus. We find natural variations in assorted health issues over time and over geography. If we say the rate of X cancer in the US is N/100.000 people, throughout the country there will be places that rate will be 1/10th that and others it will be 10 times that, and over time those will shift.
There are frequent stories slaiming that some cancer or other health problem cluster is caused by some very specific cause.
On rare occasions these even prove to be true. But most geographic. regional, or time based variations that are not continental atleast is scale are far more likely to be random natural variation than by some cause such as a power plant.
That is not 100% true – but it is atleast 80% true. It is possible the correlation your story is noting is actually causation – and coal is in comparison to NG or other modern energy forms less healthy, But it is also possible that the results are just random natural variation. And determining the difference is very very hard – sometimes impossible to tell.
100% Renewable Energy and Storage. Over produce RE to the tune of 150 to 200% of load and fill in the low times with storage. The more you overproduce, the less storage you may need.
Unfortunately you are so hung up on your own “brilliance”, you haven’t discovered that pollution and climate change are two different things. Dirty coal and natural gas are different. When we close down relatively clean factories in America based on raw stupidity, they reopen in dirty China polluting the world.
You are fixated on what your masters tell you. You are unable to think for yourself. Your brilliance is merely glitter on top of some very ordinary leftist banalities.
No science again? Where is your science?
My science is looking at all sides and not creating facts out of theories.
Sources not BS.
To date, you provide sources that repeatedly provide information proven false. Deal with the issues where you went wrong. Then maybe you would have some understanding of climate change.
Scientific theories proven wrong are generally admitted and then revised or dropped. When that doesn’t happen, the science becomes quackery. That is what you have.
In your mind you are a real winner. Bring on the facts.
I am not a winner. What you are seeing are the results of you being a loser.
Stick with science.
I do. You think peer review is science. It isn’t. You think geothermal energy provides “100%” carbon free energy. You lose track of science when it comes to details.
I have never seen this level of ignorance before. Congradulations on setting a new record.
“I have never seen this level of ignorance before. Congradulations on setting a new record.”
Your problem is that you do not understand science or what it is, which I think was presented earlier. You think you know tremendous amounts, but to this date, you have proven yourself ignorant on every question. I don’t worry about your type of comment that lacks proof. Ad Hominem is all you have, but Ad Hominem is not science.
Wow. You have never talked science yet in reality. You are trying to say science is corrupt when they use peer review for the quality of their science. They have used peer review since the 1600s. You don’t know science, your arm waving is not science, your analogies are not science, you don’t even understand this little introduction to GHGs below. Talk to me. What does this say below and tell me whether you agree with it or not. I gurantee that the peer review process brought this knowledge together to become a statement of fact. This isn’t about me, this about a little test to see where you stand. This is easy but it may just be over your head.
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]
“You are trying to say science is corrupt when they use peer review for the quality of their science.”
No one said that. Are you lying because you cannot hold your own, or do you lack reading comprehension? I so happen to partake in the peer review system, as do all who deal with scientific papers, whether they publish or read.
“They have used peer review since the 1600s. ”
You are repeating yourself. No one denied the usefulness of a peer review process. You are unaware of the pitfalls as you are unaware of everything else.
You can say what you want about me, but I prove honest and knowledgeable. You proved yourself a dummy.
You are paraphrasing another’s work to prove yourself. All you demonstrate is that you can rephrase things you Google on the net. You don’t think, and in part, that is because you believe in censoring those things that disagree with what you think you know.
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/23/cancellations-start-for-john-clauser-after-nobel-physics-laureate-speaks-out-about-corruption-of-climate-science/
Reading this short article there is really no basis of rebuttal showing how the climate science is wrong. Just denier memes repeated over and over. With Dr. Clauser at the helm, established science is completely safe. A nice check went into this piocket though.
How is climate science wrong ?
Let me count the ways.
1). Climate scientists and their models are unable to forecast to within 2.5 std dev of reality – that is abysmal. No one in any other field would accept even a 1std dev failure to forecast as valid science.
2). Climate is a chaos system. regardless of the claims of climate scientists – we do not have the fundimental science – and may never have it to actually model or predict it.
A chaos system is one in which the complexities are so great that if you try to duplicate it in a laboratory even if you think you have controlled for everything – if you conduct the same experiment multiple times you get different results each time.
3). climate science fails to correct for errors.
4). The actual scientific predictions – which have universally proven higher than reality, are NOT catastrophic.
5). Climate science – with no basis presumes that we have a runaway positive feedback system those are virtually non-existant, if that were not the case – life on earth would not exist. Nature invariably has net NEGATIVE feedback systems. Nature goes through Cycles, not one direction long term trends in almost everything.
6). Even the basic science of GHG’s means that linear or near linear increases in CO2 will NOT produce linear increases in temperature. Warmists claim that temperatures increase by 4C for each doubling of CO2 – that is likely far too high with the real number being less than 1C and possibly less tan 0.25C. Regardless lets assume 4C – that means going from 330ppm to 600ppm will result in a 4C increase. IKt has take us about 70 years to get a 100ppm increase – and the rate of increase is very close to linear. It will take 210years to get our first doubling and over 1000 years to get our second. I would note this is driven by fundamental Physics. The hotter something is the more energy it takes just to remain in thermal equalibrium
Those are just a few of the flaws in climate science – there are many many more.
There is good reason Climate science has been abysmal at prediction – because it is really crude and pretty bad science overall.
That is wrong. Fox news gets you anything but the truth on climate.
1). Climate scientists and their models are unable to forecast to within 2.5 std dev of reality – that is abysmal. No one in any other field would accept even a 1std dev failure to forecast as valid science.
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
A 2019 study led by Zeke Hausfather (Hausfather et al. 2019) evaluated 17 global surface temperature projections from climate models in studies published between 1970 and 2007. The authors found “14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred.”
Already done.
2). Climate is a chaos system. regardless of the claims of climate scientists – we do not have the fundimental science – and may never have it to actually model or predict it.
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
A 2019 study led by Zeke Hausfather (Hausfather et al. 2019) evaluated 17 global surface temperature projections from climate models in studies published between 1970 and 2007. The authors found “14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred.”
3). climate science fails to correct for errors.
False. Uncertanity is a very steady form of communication amongst the scientists. Errors are reasons for scientists to withdraw their papers to correct for replublishing.
4). The actual scientific predictions – which have universally proven higher than reality, are NOT catastrophic.
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
When it comes to sea level rise. Projections are below the observed sea level rise.
5). Climate science – with no basis presumes that we have a runaway positive feedback system those are virtually non-existant, if that were not the case – life on earth would not exist.
Science itself does not talk about runaway climate change of complete self destruction. they do talk about tipping points. Of which you don’t know much about more than likely.
6). Even the basic science of GHG’s means that linear or near linear increases in CO2 will NOT produce linear increases in temperature. Warmists claim that temperatures increase by 4C for each doubling of CO2
Actually its 3*C for every doubling of co2. Its called climate sensitivity. It would be better for everyone if it were smaller. Last I read, low side is 2.5*C per doubling of co2.
It will take 210years to get our first doubling and over 1000 years to get our second.
We can royally screw ourselves on business as usual GHG emissions. RCP 8.5 isn’t done rising by the end of the century. This is a serious amount of coal expansion by 2100.
https://skepticalscience.com/rcp.php?t=3
Table 4: from Moss et.al. 2010. Median temperature anomaly over pre-industrial levels and SRES comparisons based on nearest temperature anomaly, from Rogelj et.al. 2012
Democrats have taken total control of academia, as well as journals. If you don’t support Democrat positions, you likely won’t get hired or published. Once they have weeded out dissenting views, they start using rhetoric “experts agree”, “published studies agree”, and so on.
There is actually a lot of dissent on anthropogenic climate change, no predictions have come to pass, and zero computer models have proven accurate.
Well said Karen.
Climate sensitivity is a big deal. 2.5*C (4.5*F) and 4.0*C and (7.2*F) for each doubling of CO2. We have already come 1.2*C and have about 140 ppm co2 to go before doubling. 2.5 *C is nasty stuff and 4.0*C is society destabilizing type temperature increase.
The report quantifies climate sensitivity as between 2.5 °C (4.5 °F) and 4.0 °C (7.2 °F) for each doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,[6] while the best estimate is 3 °C.[24]: SPM-11 In all the represented Shared Socioeconomic Pathways the temperature reaches the 1.5 °C warming limit, at least for some period of time in the middle of the 21st century. However, Joeri Rogelj, director of the Grantham Institute and a lead IPCC author, said that it is possible to completely avoid warming of 1.5 °C, but to achieve that the world would need to cut emissions by 50% by the year 2030 and by 100% by the year 2050. If the world does not begin to drastically cut emissions by the time of the next report of the IPCC, then it will no longer be possible to prevent 1.5 °C of warming.[25] SSP1-1.9 is a new pathway with a rather low radiative forcing of 1.9 W/m2 in 2100 to model how people could keep warming below the 1.5 °C threshold. But, even in this scenario, the global temperature peaks at 1.6 °C in the years 2041–2060 and declines after.[23]
The Left’s agenda all about the “de”s. Depopulation and destruction. Key to both is demonizing and then banning fossil fuels. It has nothing to do with science. It’s all about political goals (and getting rich off taxpayers in the process).
Not true. Science shows earth’s cooling mechanism is being slowed down by GHGs mainly co2. Nothing you can do to change that truth. ignoring it and it doesn’t go away.
Now it’s all making sense.
Better late than never. Yes, the new sock puppet renewableguy is neither renewable nor a guy. He is the familiar sophomoric, West Hollywood, California whiny troll who terrorizes commenters with inane comments. He likely suffers from the same attention seeking, mental illness as the sad sack who created a fake video allegedly crashing a plane, just to get hits on his YouTube account. Bring back insane asylums
I love it. Deniers just can’t handle reality.
I find it a stretch to believe Moreno’s decision was made merely by reading a flyer. What is more likely is pressure was put on him by the “scientists” whose own models (and financial futures) would be threatened if Clauser’s modeling proved to have scientific validity.
It was the smell of the stench of bad science. Why waste itme on garbage.
Why waste itme on garbage.
Well, as we’ve proven over the course this debate, the more we’ve “wasted” time with you, the more we’ve learned you actually know nothing about the subject, don’t understand the scientific method, and fear the free flow of scientific knowledge.
That’s why.
You want co2 coalition to be recognized as a legitimate body of science. Their words have to match reality and they don’t do that.
Not only is Lefitsm pro-censorship, it has an anti-science mindset that has overtaken an entire state government:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nj-board-education-adopts-equity-policy-removing-terms-like-female-male-favor-all-students
Excerpted from Richard Feynman’s lecture, What Is Science. It is long, but by example he shows how we should think. Some on the blog believe peer review is science. It isn’t. It is a fallible process to classify information where the reviewers can be right, wrong or somewhere in-between. Where climate change is supposed to be discussed, peer review has been the censorship of ideas that the peer reviewers cannot explain and do not meet their biases.
“doubt that what is being passed from the past is in fact true, and to try to find out ab initio again from experience what the situation is, rather than trusting the experience of the past in the form in which it is passed down. And that is what science is: the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the [human] race[‘s] experience from the past. I see it that way. That is my best definition.” _Richard Feynman
Let Dr Clauser pass his paper in peer review his views on climate science. Peer review is a process of weeding out the mistakes and in this era fraud.
Clauser’s paper is accepted by many scientists, just not the ones doing the peer review. Peer review is not science. If it is handled appropriately it can be helpful. If it is handled inappropriately as is frequently happening in climate science then it is anti-science.
If all people on a panel think alike, then when reviewing a new idea they will all respond the same way. That is not science.
Show me. Sources.
Grindr
Sniffies
Adam4adam
WeHo bathhouse
There are some sources but tell us if they let you have access to them given your reputation
Sources for what? I guess you believe peer review is science and that the earth is flat.
SMeyer, It took me a little while to realize…’renew’ is JeffSilbermann trying a new email address and moniker to see of Soros will pay him to be contrary/confrontational on Turley’s blog. Now it’s all making sense.
Now it’s all making sense.
Better late than never. Yes, the new sock puppet renewableguy is neither renewable nor a guy. He is the familiar sophomoric, West Hollywood, California whiny troll who terrorizes commenters with inane comments. He likely suffers from the same attention seeking, mental illness as the sad sack who created a fake video allegedly crashing a plane, just to get hits on his YouTube account. Bring back insane asylums
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5lc35Cq5nE
“Bring back insane asylums.” Yes! Let them lecture each other in a calm, relaxing, safe space away from the prying eyes of the public. Excellent idea! 💡👍 🤪😜🥼🥼
People on the left are always changing their names hoping that a new name will make them intelligent. That theory has been proven wrong.
Though I agree this is one of those reincarnations, I don’t think it is Jeff. Does it matter? No. Does it matter if you are watching rerun #100 or #101? No.
Agreed. Although, you have to admit he’s nailed Jeff’s cadence, smugness and oversized ego. Twins, perhaps? 🤔😄
A common theme amongst deniers is that they feel vulnerable to put their science out there. You are no different.
How does one put their science out there? So far, nothing you have said represents solid science. You don’t even know that peer review isn’t science.
You must have a liberal arts degree.
I have a bachelors in engineering tech. Physics based. I’ve noticed lots of errors on here.
If you notice errors, you should correct them. However, I don’t see you doing that.
You are more on the side of practicality than the theoretical.
I should add, I assumed liberal arts, but you tell me engineering tech. I guess that is somewhat in-between engineering and liberal arts, though clearly located in the engineering department.
During my summer, I worked as a sort of engineering tech in my college days before moving on to graduate work, interesting, but it wasn’t my thing.
“A common theme amongst deniers is that they feel vulnerable to put their science out there.”
Uh, did you read the blog post?
There is no science put out there. Its just denier repeated false memes.
Thanks for bringing a breath of Feynman’s sanity to the discussion. He once said “I’d rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question.” Science seems to be losing that spirit.
Another gem from the same speech: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. The experts who are leading you may be wrong. Science alone, of all the subjects, contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation.” –Richard Feynman
I’d rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question.
That is awesome! JT should imbed that in his blog’s banner. Thank you
Thank you for that quote SM. This blog is demonstrating on this topic what Clausen was denied. On one side we have opinions, facts and evidence to challenge the climate change alarmists. And on the other side we have Shut up!
Exactly. Nicely stated.
The “Shut up” crew’s misbegotten position seems to be that Dr. Clauser is unqualified to speak on the subject because he is a mere Nobel Prize-winning quantum physicist who lacks the proper credentials.
By their lights, I suppose a religious nut who couldn’t get any better job than bookbinder should never be allowed to have an opinion on any topic in physics.
Sorry, Michael Faraday.
Perhaps the “Shut up crew” suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Not only do they believe they are right, but they alone should decide what is right. They affectively null “their” consensus by using the scientific method themselves and then by censoring the scientific method of others. Once nulled, the next immediate question should what is the root cause of their efforts to silence dissent?
Sorry, Michael Faraday
That was clever and brilliant. Faraday was a consummate Christian and scientist. Thank you for mentioning him. It was so refreshing. As regulars know, I see science and religion completely miscible. Shocking, I know, 💡 but only for those who do not follow the science! 😎
Science and Faith In the Life of Michael Faraday
Michael Faraday was in a class of his own where science was concerned – a giant among pygmies. In his synthesis of science and Christianity, in his strong confidence in the authority of Scripture, and in his simple faith in Christ, Faraday was typical of a great many gifted scientists, both before and since. For them, and for him, the task of scientific exploration was not only exciting and sat- isfying. In a very real sense it was a Christian vocation.
https://www.faraday.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%2013%20Russell_EN.pdf
Michael Faraday’s religion and its relation to his science
Abstract: While controversy rages over the relationship between science and religion, we examine the specific interconnections between Faraday’s religion and his science. As a Sandemanian Christian, he conceived his role in the scientific community as a natural extension of his religious values. Moreover, it is suggested that he understood the physical universe as a divinely ordained natural economy; thus, his science was directed to ascertaining the way God had created the universe.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-9327(98)01134-X
It’s always nice to meet another Faraday fan! He amazes me; he started what Einstein called “The Great Revolution” and Einstein kept a picture of him in his study. He was virtually entirely self-taught. He would crash lectures at the Royal Society (Nullius in verba!) and managed to secure an apprenticeship with Sir Humphry Davy. He invented the electric motor and developed the idea of electromagnetism, all without any real background in mathematics. Luckily, a Scottish lad named James Clerk-Maxwell was able to help him out with the latter.
If you get a chance, there is an excellent episode of Nova called Einstein’s Big Idea. You can find it on Youtube. The first chapter is devoted to Faraday, but the whole thing is worth watching.
John Lithgow as narrator is an excellent choice. He played a government scientist in The Manhattan Project film (1986).
“Generally, if one side is begging for a debate while the other side avoids it at all costs and even tries to censor opposing views, that should tell you a lot about which side is likely closer to the truth.” —Scott Morefield
That is the big tell.
One of the benefits of 100% clean energy is better health. Also no co2 emitted into the atmosphere.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/08/04/coal-plant-closure-led-to-rapid-drop-in-heart-attacks-and-strokes-in-this-city-new-study-f
Coal plant closure led to rapid drop in heart attacks and strokes in this city, new study finds
One researcher compared the benefits from cleaner air to the health gains people make after quitting smoking.
The closure of a large coal plant in the US has been linked to a near-instant drop in heart attacks and strokes among local people.
Shenango Coke Works facility in Pittsburgh closed in January 2016 after incurring millions of dollars in government fines for air and water pollution.
Years of community pressure helped bring its long reign to an end – and locals were quickly rewarded in health gains, according to a new study by researchers at New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine.
“Our research provides compelling scientific evidence that the closure of this coal-processing coke plant significantly eliminated fossil fuel-related air pollution emissions that improved the air quality and cardiovascular health of nearby residents,” says lead investigator Wuyue Yu.
“One of the benefits of 100% clean energy is better health.”
Let’s see:
Hydroelectric dams are evil. Nuclear is worse. Fossil fuels are mass murder. Coal is genocide.
So what exactly is the plan for creating all of that additional electricity?
Twinkle your nose? Click your heels?
And if you dare say wind/solar, you should be laughed off this blog.
There are people who hate change. You must be one of them. The world is changing pal. Get used to it.
https://www.bbc.com › future › article › 20230414-climate-change-why-2023-is-a-clean-energy-milestone
The clean energy milestone the world is set to pass in 2023
Apr 14, 2023Renewable electricity has pushed through a series of positive tipping points in recent years, with 2023 set to pass a major milestone. T This year, the world is predicted to pass a critical turning…
https://www.weforum.org › agenda › 2023 › 04 › electricity-generation-solar-wind-renewables-ember
We’re close to a new era of renewable power generation | World Economic …
Apr 12, 2023Wind and solar power generation is growing by around 15-20% per year – based on a 10-year average – and looks set to outstrip any increases in annual electricity demand by the end of 2023 as they are, in many countries, already cheaper and strategically more secure than fossil fuels.
“There are people who hate change.”
You’re a joke — a destructive one. And those claims you cite are laughably false.
See, as just two examples, Germany’s and England’s electricity drain — caused by your renewable “energy” policies. Of if that’s too far afield, look at California.
Things aren’t going your way Sam. How are you going to change that?
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/08/04/sunrise-brief-woodmac-predicts-270-gw-of-new-global-pv-capacity-in-2023/
Sunrise brief: WoodMac predicts 270 GW of new global PV capacity in 2023
There is no such thing as 100% clean energy.
All green energy is dependent on fossil fuels to mine those rare earth elements and to a degree common elements like copper. There are some exceptions like the use of child slave labor in the Congo or the Uyghurs in China. How do you feel about that?
The processing of those elements is also energy intensive also done by fossil fuels. The impact to the environment cannot be ruled out as many countries outside of the US do not use EPA like standards. So there is a whole lot of pollution going on in the name of clean energy. It is just not here in the US as we export that pollution to make ourselves feel good about ourselves for going green!
Then there is the recycling factor. Only 5% of wind turbines are recycled. Only 10% of solar panels are recycled. The rest are landfill bound. Factor in the real costs to recycle all wind turbines and solar panels and their costs sky rocket surpassing coal, nat gas and nuclear. In modern human history, we have always gone from a lower energy dense source to a higher one. Wood for coal. Coal for oil. Oil for nat gas. Nat gas for nuclear. Now we are expected to go from those higher energy dense sources to one that varies somewhere between lower to slightly higher wood? Taking into consideration the reliability of wind and solar vs even wood.
Then there is that: Reliability. Wind and solar fall far short of all those other energy dense sources. Battery storage has not matured at a rate to match those other energy dense sources. The US electrical grid is highly dependent on reliable energy sources and a fine balancing act of supply vs demand. The US electrical grid is also woefully outdated and in dire need of modernization. At some cost of a trillion dollars or more, not factoring green energy.
EVs sounds like a great idea, until one factors in all the costs from mining to recycling. Then they become cost prohibitive. The average American cannot afford a EV as it is. Then there is the where is the energy to recharge all those EVs coming from. As noted above, green energy cannot provide that kind of generation. For that matter Biden admin energy policies are forcing coal and nat gas energy production plants to close faster than green energy can fill the gap. What does that mean? Higher energy costs for Americans and the possibility of brown and black outs. Note car insurance companies are more likely to junk a EV as it is cheaper than to have it repaired.
What climate change activists do not talk about is carbon footprint. They want to have their cake and eat it too, toting green clean energy.
If they were really serious, they would focus on reducing the carbon footprint of every single person on the whole planet. To the point of pre-Industralization Revolution. Think mid to late 1800s.
Would you be willing to give up your current lifestyle for a mid 1800s lifestyle?
That is what people like AOC and you do not have the intestinal fortitude to do.
There is no such thing as 100% clean energy.
It already exists in parts of the world now.
What a juvenile response.
If you are referring to geo-thermal then say so rather than some drive by response without providing evidence.
Otherwise provide examples of where 100% clean energy exists without fossil fuel inputs.
“Otherwise provide examples . . .”
Don’t you know? It’s called magic energy. It is energy created by a something-or-other, which something-or-other requires no physical materials, consumes no energy during its manufacturing, and does not need to be transported or maintained.
I think there’s a patent for it, titled something like: perpetual motion machine.
Sam: _And some of it clearly is coming from the steam being blown off from our long-winded and very opinionated fellow commenter, renewable guy (who made a comment recognizing jeff silberman, so it looks like renewableguy has reinvented himself to be more eco-friendly. (I started following this blog roughly shy of two years ago, when mr. jeff was apparently at his peak.)
Lin,
I disagree.
This is not Jeff.
Jeff at least had a degree of intelligence behind his comments.
This has more the fingerprints of ATS. Drive by one line comments. Lack of evidence. Avoiding addressing parts of comments that are factual like child slave labor in the Congo. The obvious copy and paste from other sites.
Birds of a Feather, Upstate. Negligible difference, if any.
Upstate: No no no. I was simply noting how long I have been on this blog, but I don’t remember seeing a “renewable guy” posting until the last few days. However, in one of his posts, renewableguy seems to know of jeffsilberman, -so he must have been on this blog at least as long as I. So I assume he has changed his identifier. That’s all I was saying.
reference:
“renewableguy says:
August 4, 2023 at 4:59 PM
SMeyer, It took me a little while to realize…’renew’ is JeffSilbermann trying a new email address and moniker to see of Soros will pay him…”
Sam,
Thank you for mentioning perpetual motion machine.
I was going to but I had so many other facts in mind it slipped my mind.
Your assumption is Fossil Fuels can’t be replaced. When RE hits 90% fossil fuels get easier to replace since less FF is needed for grid balancing. Natural gas is a logical choice in the interim. When way less NG is needed, other forms of fill energy can be used that is less harmful to the climate.
“Natural gas is a logical choice . . .”
Natural gas is a fossil fuel.
After awhile grid balancing will be able to be acheived without natural gas.
After awhile grid balancing will be able to be acheived without natural gas.”
Then your prior arguments put the cart before the horse.
Wrong.
Good. We can all recognize you with your horse pushing the cart instead of leading it.
“After awhile . . .”
Will that be after the third or tenth (Soviet) “five-year” plan?
At least the communists had a plan. These statists and destroyers have nothing but magic “energy.” Enjoy that voodoo “energy,” as you stand in the dark, naked, freezing and starving to death.
There are 90 to 100% renewable energy countries now.
More pipe dream logic.
Nothing says better than miles and miles of wind turbines breaking up the skyline, the damage they do to the environment.
Then there is cutting down forests for solar farms, or replacing good farmland.
I see exactly that around where I live.
And a lot of these wind and solar companies leasing from farmers, really screw the farmers over.
More pipe dream logic.
Nothing says better than miles and miles of wind turbines breaking up the skyline, the damage they do to the environment.
Then there is cutting down forests for solar farms, or replacing good farmland.
I see exactly that around where I live.
And a lot of these wind and solar companies leasing from farmers, really screw the farmers over.
Modern society cannot be sustained by fossil fuels. Its an energy form that changes our environment for the worse.
Solar panels on farms can graise animals or grow crops in between. The farmers can have an income off the land year around.
Wind generators offshore are tremendous producers of energy better than onshore wind. 15 miles out to sea, they are barely noticeable.
Onshore wind gives farmers a nice healthy income year round, Takes up next to no room.
Renew pushes a falsehood that geothermal energy is 100% clean. He says his degree is in engineering technology. After such an answer, one assumes he is not what he says, or needs to go back to the books.
The price for a system is high and might never be recouped, but that is not the problem. It requires tremendous amounts of excavating and home renovation, which is not clean. It requires circulating pumps, fans, and compressors. All of those are not 100% clean to create and run. I think one generally uses a heat pump which takes energy in the form of electricity, which might be generated by coal, natural gas, or something else. That is not 100% clean. Then there is the fluid that is used to circulate within the system, and might be an environmental hazard.
Renew, based on your training, you should already know these things, but you don’t, or you are being dishonest in your replies. This is closely connected to your chosen field. so all of this should have prevented you from your errant response. He did the same thing when replying to John Say.
SM,
Thje answer for all forms of energy,
Indeed for nearly all things.
Is that if they are so great – they will succeed entirely on their own.
Without subsidies, without govenrment policies
People invest huge amounts of capital in things they expect to work.
I am not oppoosed to renewables. I fully expect that we will shift to renewables of one form or another over time.
Kust as we switch from wood, and dung to coal, and then oil and then gas.
But that time is NOT now.
I think that without subsidies electric cars are now viable in SOME use cases.
We have some incredibly good electric cars and they have significant advantages over gas powered cars.
BUT they also have deficits. They are NOT capable of replacing gas powered vehciles in all uses.
They are not capable of replacing Trucks at all and may never be able to.
But they are excellent commuter vehicles. If you do not drive more than an hour at a time – they are probably a better choice than a gas vehcle.
But if you drive long distances – even SOME of the time – you either need two cars, ro you need a gas powered car.
This is improving – but very slowly.
Regardless, my real point is that free markets will work this out all by themselves.
If wind energy was as good as RG says TODAY
investors would be flocking to it in droves without subsidies.
I am separately a proponet – not so much of renewables – but of alternative energy – especially decentralized energy – which most renewables are. One BIG facotr in favor of alternatives is moving gneration closer to consumption.
Solar cells on roofs are CLOSE to viability even without storage systems and even withour selling power back to the power company. They are close to the 7 year payback needed to be a good investment in SOME regions – without subsidies, and without storage and withotu selling excess to power companies.
And there are major other benefits to generating power in a distributed fashion.
But let this happen ON ITS OWN.
In general, John, I believe you are correct.
I used solar to heat my pool many decades ago. I got a good price for maintaining a satisfactory temperature plus the added effect of cooling at night when daytime temperatures were too high. I already had a natural gas heater, but the solar power didn’t have the lag time of gas since it worked all the time. Natural gas could add an extra boost if the outside temperature was too cold or clouds blocked the sun. It paid for itself financially and otherwise.
I had solar for hot water. I think it cost more than it saved and caused too many problems. I got rid of it.
I selected what was best for me. I had hot water in the house from gas while from solar and a bit of natural gas (rare), I had pool temperatures I wanted 365 days at almost no cost compared to running natural gas continuously to keep the temperature the way I wanted.
I and the environment benefited. If renewable were there, everyone would have lost.
SM – I am not looking to debate the specific merits of approach A over approach B.
First the world tends not to be one size fits all.
As I noted – I think there is a significant net positive use case for some electric cars.
Regardless, even if there were not, I would no more oppose someone buying an electric car – for whatever reason – including to stupidly signal that their were eco friendly. Than I would piss all over someone who bought a Lotus Hurican.
We can not decide what the best choice for pretty much ANYTHING is – not cars, not renewables not education at the government level and the higher up the government we go the WORSE that idea is.
I use the Lotus Hurican example – because it is so extreme and so obvious at the same time.
A ford escort and a Lotus Hurican will get you across Manhattan in exactly the same time.
By any “socialized measure” the Hurican would be the wrong choice.
Yet nearly all of us grasp that crossing manhattan in a Lotus Hurican anddoing so in a Ford Escort are NOT the same experience.
That the Hurican owner is paying an enormous amount of money – but that he is getting something extra that he is WILLING to pay more for.
I would further note that todays luxuries are tomorows commodities.
That has been completely true of the entire modern era. It is how free markets work.
Many on the right make purely economic arguments against renewables.
And those arguments are correct.
But the same economic arguments were made against coal when we moved from Dung and Wood, and they were made against oil, and later gas and electric.
SOMETIMES the new thing that ultimately everyone adopted was CHEAPER – but that is NOT the norm.
The norm is that the world improves – it becomes cleaner, safer, better – not because the NEW way is more economical, but because WE consumers are more affluent and just like the hurican – we value that something extra, enough to pay for it.
SOMETIMES that ultimately reslts in the New thing becoming cheaper, but it nearly never starts that way.
Over the past century – contra the left we have sene massive improvement is quality of life.
In working conditions, in workplace safety in clean air and clean water, in health and myriads of other – large and small quality of life factors.
Every single one of these came about – not because of government, but because standard of living rose and people could afford better.
Nearly all of us have a great deal of nostaglia for the past and long for a return to better and simpler times.
It is a fact that the past was simpler.
with rare exceptions it is false that the past was better. We only remember it that way.
We do not remember most of what we did not have when our standard of living was lower.
We do not really remember what life was like without television, the internet, radio, MP3’s smart phones,
dishwashers, computers, alexa, and on and on and on.
We do not remember that though gas cost 1.50 in 1975, that the minim wage in 1975 was 1.60.
Most things are actually cheaper today than they were 50 years ago.
Further that is tautologically true.
For standard of living to rise humans MUST be able to consume MORE working the same amount.
The only areas where prices have risen drastically compared to standard of living are those areas government meddles in.
Accross the board – the price of anything is directly proportionate to the amount government is involved in that thing.
The price of education at all levels has risen dramatically – in all terms. But the value of education has slightly declined.
The way to assure that the cost of something will increase and its value decrease is to involve government,.
“First the world tends not to be one size fits all.”
Did I say anything that disagreed?
IRT insurance, Will Insurance Costs Derail The EV Revolution?
https://realclearwire.com/articles/2023/08/02/will_insurance_costs_derail_the_ev_revolution_970320.html
There are several commenters on here that disagree with Dr. Clauser. Fine, no problem there. But not a single one will say that Dr. Clauser should have been permitted to speak as he was initially invited to do. They all promote censorship.
In my experience when people are confident they are right, they welcome an open and public debate, knowing the merit of their ideas and conclusions will win out in such a context. When people are not confident, they favor censorship. That makes it easy to see which side is confident in the merit of their own ideas, and which side is not.
https://co2coalition.org › publications › nobel-laureate-john-clauser-elected-to-co2-coalition-board-of-directors
Nobel Laureate John Clauser Elected to CO2 Coalition Board of Directors
May 5, 202305.5.2023 Nobel Laureate John Clauser Elected to CO2 Coalition Board of Directors Tweet This Dr. John F. Clauser, recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has been elected to serve on the board of directors of the CO 2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia.
Basically this guy is a climate liar. Free speech does include lying in public. The IMFs job isn’t defined that they have to listen to climate lies.
https://co2coalition.org › publications › nobel-laureate-john-clauser-elected-to-co2-coalition-board-of-directors
Nobel Laureate John Clauser Elected to CO2 Coalition Board of Directors
May 5, 202305.5.2023 Nobel Laureate John Clauser Elected to CO2 Coalition Board of Directors Tweet This Dr. John F. Clauser, recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has been elected to serve on the board of directors of the CO 2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia.
This organization’s purpose is to support fossil fuels. The IMF can refuse anyone they wish to. I for one am quite happy they canceled him.
I for one am quite happy they canceled him.
Thus demonstrating once again that the Left’s instincts are always totalitarian.
Someone like Hitler should be cancelled by organizations as much as they wish. There is no obligation to listen. His free speech has not been restricted. He can go lie anywhere else to anyone that will listen.
Godwin’s law strikes again!
The climate Malthusians tell us that we should summarily dismiss Clauser’s ideas and arguments, because he is not a climate scientist. He is a physicist.
Leeuwenhoek was (arguably) the father of microbiology, and created for the time masterful microscopes. He started his career as a cloth merchant.
The irrational smear a great scientist by focusing on his past CV. The rational want to know only one thing: Are his ideas and arguments true or false? (And they want to hear those arguments.)
He is free to speak to anyone that will listen to him. Some people don’t want to hear it. That is their right also. Science has defined damage that AGW will do and Dr Clauser is saying damage is not a bad thing?
“Science has defined damage that AGW will do”
Since when has science attained personhood? You demonstrate that you do not know what science is.
I have read the science. More than likely you haven’t. Sea level rise. Ocean acidification. We keep this up burning fossil fuels, it gets nasty.
You are dealing with hysteria, not science.
Hysteria is an uncontrollable emotion one gets without the ability to, in this case, clearly look at the science. That is why you list your fears instead of your arguments.
So far no one is using sources. It is their profound opinion why not to believe the science.
Hysteria is not science.
I agree that hysteria is not science. But why hide his science. Put it in plain sight for all to see. You don’t get your foot in the door with martyrdom. You get in the door with solid evidence. Dr. Clauser isn’t revealing his hand.
I am listening to your logic and words. You are not listening to anyone not conforming with your version of climate science and that version is more emotional than scientific.
That is the denier way you just described. Pick any area of science and lets go at it. I love that kind of discussion.
Climate sensitivity. What do you know?
Even if CO2 warms the planet, and even if artificially warming the planet is harmful. it does not necessarily follow that society should reduce CO2 emissions.
Where is the discussion in Washington on the NET costs and benefits of a warmer planet? Could it be that a warmer planet is a net benefit to society?
Where is the discussion in Washington on the reduced personal freedom and reduced privacy that often accompany climate policy in the United States? Could it be that personal freedom and privacy are more important to American voters than reducing CO2 emissions?
And where is the discussion in Washington on the dangers of turning over United States policy on CO2 emissions to an international body? Is the loss of national autonomy worth whatever benefits there could be to such an arrangement?
It seems these issues are routinely acted upon by Congress with virtually no discussion or debate.
Not to mention that the issue will ultimately be decided by what China, Africa, and South America decide to do. Compared to that any reduction we make is ultimately just noise other than it makes us poorer and makes our country less powerful (which perhaps is the actual objective).
[[[[[[Could it be that a warmer planet is a net benefit to society?]]]]]]
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
Every sector of human existence is negatively effected. Sea level rise is one of the greatest costs to us in the trillions
“Every sector of human existence is negatively effected.”
You have just denied consensus science and peer review.
“Every sector of human existence is negatively effected.”
You have just denied consensus science and peer review.
Not. Show me.
If the temperature rises slightly there will be more farmland.
The number of deaths rise with reduced world temperatures.
Those are two important results that prove ““Every sector of human existence is negatively effected.” is wrong.
As temperature rises, crop productivity will decrease over time.
https://climate.nasa.gov › news › 3124 › global-climate-change-impact-on-crops-expected-within-10-years-nasa-study-finds
Global Climate Change Impact on Crops Expected Within 10 Years, NASA …
Nov 2, 2021″A 20% decrease from current production levels could have severe implications worldwide.” Average global crop yields for maize, or corn, may see a decrease of 24% by late century, with the declines becoming apparent by 2030, with high greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new NASA study.
“As temperature rises, crop productivity will decrease over time.”
Another specious argument based on predictions not related to man’s known activities. You rely on false unproven science which in the 1970’s predicted you would freeze to death.
“…issues are routinely acted upon by Congress with virtually no discussion or debate.” And have been since the beginning, hence the problems getting multiplied to the point where The People no longer trust Congress nor the people who cover for them in the media.
Miller, you may enjoy the same article posted earlier:
http://raconteurreport.blogspot.com/2017/06/aliens-cause-global-warming-by-michael.html?m=1
When I think of real science, the names Robin Warren and Barry Marshall come to mind. They are know for the discovery of Helicobacter pylori, They were dismissed and laughed at because they dared to cross convention’s bounds and follow the science. They got the last laugh and a Nobel Peace Prize.
Those who use the term “settled” science have no idea what they are talking about. True science always welcomes debate and scrutiny. But there is the rub. So called “Science” in many ways has been co-opted and corrupted, especially when one follows the money. .
The “Climate Change” hysteria is nothing more than a mechanism to control people and make piles of cash. Is the climate changing? Well of course it changes. Go to Carlsbad Caverns. You are standing in the Chihuahuan Desert and descend 80 stories down into a barrier reef. The walk down inside is over a mile. The closest ocean is a nine hour drive away. Go figure!
Who doesn’t want clean cities, parks forests and water. Makes sense. Sounds rather conservative.
Should this guy really have earth shaking revalation that the 98% of scientists are getting it wrong, then the proper avenue is to write a peer reviewed paper in the proper science journal. The IMF is not the proper format for this. Put his information and point of view about the evidence in front of the best climate scientists in the world. CO2 coalition is not a respected group for telling the truth on climate science. The format of a blog sticking up for co2 coalition pretty much says this is all a load of garbage taking place. It was totally proper to exclude him to keep the quality of discussion at a higher level than to degrade themselves with FF propaganda.
Funny that you don’t realize that you are the sucker. Doesn’t take much effort to find out that the 98% figure was and always has been bogus.
I hear the disinformation between your ears. LOL. The more the reality of AGW is upon us. the more extreme deniers are cornored to explain what is going on. Only the internet gives you refuge to carry out your fantasy of delusion.
Why are you so afraid of someone speaking? Why not support having a conversation where all sides are free to speak, and one person’s reasoning and data can be countered with another person’s reasoning and data? That way people can judge for themselves what is right.
IMF is not the format for this. I don’t see his basis for his point of view. He hasn’t expressed where the AGW stream of thinking is incorrect. So far its just platitudes. Sea level rise by itself is one of the really destructive outcomes of AGW. AGW will become trillions per year in damage alone,
IMF is not the format for this.
Why not? People speak at all sorts of events hosted by all sorts of organizations. And by deflecting to the question of the proper forum, are you saying he should be able to speak at some other organization of similar stature?
He hasn’t expressed where the AGW stream of thinking is incorrect.
So the solution to that is to censor him and prevent him from doing so? You are making absolutely no sense.
Dr. Clauser is based in false opinion. It is not based in fact. Harm can be defined. The economists lead the way in cancelling him, and the economy is going to experience more and more effort to deal with our negative use of fossil fuels.
. . . negative use of fossil fuels.
What does that even mean? It is a phrase with no meaning at all. What, like converting energy back into fossil fuels?
Without the use of fossil fuels we all starve. Maybe that’s what you want, I don’t know. But promoting censorship is not the answer to any issue that arises in society . . . unless you’re a totalitarian.
What does that even mean? It is a phrase with no meaning at all. What, like converting energy back into fossil fuels?
Continued use of fossil fuels by human society is a sure fire way to kill ourselves in the long run. If you cannot see that, that is part of your personality that refuses to see the whole picture. So you cherry pick the parts that fit your world view and ignor the rest. I can see the positives and I can also see the negatives. Its your life and you get to do with it what you want. But you are refusing the whole truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
Origin
Importance
Environmental effects
Illness and deaths
Phase-out
Toggle Phase-out subsection
Just transition
Divestment
Industrial sector
Toggle Industrial sector subsection
Economic effects
Subsidies
Lobbying activities
“the reality of AGW is upon us.”
Ever notice how climate alarmists have a stock of mantras?
Kind of like a cult. With its own Mother Ship — Gaia.
[[[[[[[[https://co2coalition.org › publications › nobel-laureate-john-clauser-elected-to-co2-coalition-board-of-directors
Nobel Laureate John Clauser Elected to CO2 Coalition Board of Directors
May 5, 202305.5.2023 Nobel Laureate John Clauser Elected to CO2 Coalition Board of Directors Tweet This Dr. John F. Clauser, recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has been elected to serve on the board of directors of the CO 2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia.]]]]]]]]
This is a climate denying organization. This is about fossil fuel support and not about science. IMF is free to reject garbage all day long everyday.
“that the 98% of scientists are getting it wrong”
And nearly 100% got it wrong before Galileo and Pasteur.
Appeal to majority is not an argument. It is a fallacy — one of the countless peddled by climate Malthusians.
For a movement that allegedly “follows the science,” climate alarmists are woefully ignorant of the history of science and of the scientific method.
LOL. The folly of deniers. Your statement is completely without evidence and only lives in the synapses of your brain.
Your using the term “deniers” is a sign you’re a fundamentalist with whom there can be no logical reasoning.
On the contrary. You claim logical reasoning. It would be highly logical to follow the rules of science, to source your information on which you base your logic. I can find most of the science you may dispute and easily show you the error of your ways based in logic and science. This forces you into a corner to become antiscience.
The “rules of science” don’t include censorship and cancel culture. That’s what you’re promoting. Everything you said should be done could be done if scientists of all persuasions were allowed to speak freely and not get canceled.
IMF is not an avenue for false information on climate. You aren’t even prepared for evidence to support your point of view on climate. Evidence is clear that we humans are warming the earth. The evidence for increasing damage is already there. For someone to abuse their status in science to tell this fairytale is basically a science lie.
The IMF invited him to speak. You seem to forget that. Then they canceled him. That is always the tactic of the Left. Shut down free and open debate. Cancel a speaker you fear might say things you disagree with. Plug your ears and sing na-na-na-boo-boo. That’s what you are advocating here.
https://co2coalition.org › publications › nobel-laureate-john-clauser-elected-to-co2-coalition-board-of-directors
Nobel Laureate John Clauser Elected to CO2 Coalition Board of Directors
May 5, 202305.5.2023 Nobel Laureate John Clauser Elected to CO2 Coalition Board of Directors Tweet This Dr. John F. Clauser, recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, has been elected to serve on the board of directors of the CO 2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia.
This is not science, it is propaganda. It is a scientist abusing his status to go out and lie to people in society. Dishonesty can and should be refused on a regular basis.
” It would be highly logical to follow the rules of science”
Can you tell us the rules of science and how censorship of ideas is one of the rules?
You are making a lot of statements indicating you are a science denier.
Deniers are entitled to propaganda in their own circles. Of which they practice well. Dr. Clauser offers an opinion based on fossil fuel philosophy. The IMF is not the right format for this.
“Deniers are entitled to propaganda in their own circles. “
Deniers are afraid of facts and debate. The deniers are those who do not wish anyone else to hear opposing views. When you look in a mirror, you will see one of the deniers.
We are free to disagree with one another. Just stick to the facts with sources.
If you stuck to the facts previously predicted, you might have thought you would freeze to death. So far, those predicting climate change have been all over the map with global cooling and warming.
The science has been poorly managed and part of the reason is your desire to exclude people with Nobel Prizes from providing their opinions.
He has no god given right to go where he is not wanted. Matyrdom is not an avenue to good science. As far as I can tell, there is no stated science position on cimate. On where the scientists got it wrong.. And you can’t either. Enjoy your suffering.
I wish this comment of yours made sense, but it doesn’t.
You confuse easy. Lying about climate science is his right of free speech. Doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to him.
No one should be forced to listen to anyone, but what you are saying proves you have a closed mind, which is OK for the quick unsupported headlines, but meaningless for discussion.
Am I closed to cimate denial being the true science. You bet I am. It would quite stupid otherwise to believe all the lies perpetuated by fossil fuel desires.
“Am I closed to cimate denial being the true science. You bet I am. It would quite stupid otherwise to believe all the lies perpetuated by fossil fuel desires.”
Little more need be said. You draw your conclusions first and your data second.
Coming form you? I haven’t noticed any science on your part. Thats how I know ignorance when I see it.
“Coming form you? I haven’t noticed any science on your part. Thats how I know ignorance when I see it.”
The first rule of science is to listen. You reject that, so your arguments never get to square one. You still believe science advances through consensus. That is not true. Science progresses from the outliers, who later become the consensus.
Give up. You do not understand science, and your present mindset cannot change.
Again you are on your factless mission.
“Again you are on your factless mission.”
How so? You are a fraud.
GHGs are why we have had a great Holocene to grow crops in. Add more GHGs and we get warmer than the Holocene. Take the GHGs out and we turn into iceball earth. Got any comments on this?
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]
It is nice to know that you can attempt to paraphrase Wikipedia.
You can’t accept it or understand it. They source and you don’t.
Take note of how you say, “they source”. As I said, you parrot information you don’t know or understand. If Wikipedia could debate on the blog, many would debate it and its sources. We might even have an agreement in some data, but predictions are a different story as they do not have adequate proof one way or the other.
I have the background to understand it. You don’t pal. You sure love to bluff.
You keep telling me that but when discussing geothermal energy and many other things you demonstrated a total lack of knowledge though you can paraphrase arguments you read in Google. You will never know what I know or don’t know. The only thing you should know is I know more than you. My background is in the hard sciences as is much of my work product. My education was far more rigorous than yours.
When you start discussing science instead of regurgitating something you don’t understand, I might reenter the discussion.
My background is in the hard sciences as is much of my work product. My education was far more rigorous than yours.
Whew, Nope.
It is OK for you to think what you want, but to the group you demonstrated your lack of scientific rigor.
You aren’t fooling anybody on here. LOL. Give it up.
SMeyer, It took me a little while to realize…’renew’ is JeffSilbermann trying a new email address and moniker to see of Soros will pay him to be contrary/confrontational on Turley’s blog. Now it’s all making sense.
I didn’t have a reply button in my email. I have been doing climate discussions in comment sections for 17 years. Youguys are a hoot.
” I have been doing climate discussions in comment sections for 17 years.”
Then you must have noticed how what is dogma 17 years ago is dog today. You sound like an older gentleman on this blog. I’m waiting for you to reveal your identity.
The physics didn’t change the whole time. Just the denial shifted slowly grudgingly accepting a little more climate science.
“The physics didn’t change the whole time. Just the denial shifted slowly grudgingly accepting a little more climate science.
Of course the physics didn’t change, but the fudge factors and algorithms did on a regular basis. You should know this as an engineer tech. In a way changing theoretical engineering into a product ( climate fear) is part of your training.
We are setting record ocean temperatures with AGW. 93% of human climate change is being stored in the oceans. El Nino is what is a partial expulsion of that heat.
Background
Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[6][7][8]
Climate change denial includes doubts to the extent of how much climate change is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, and the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[9][10][11] To a lesser extent, climate change denial can also be implicit when people accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their belief or action.[12] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,[13][14] pseudoscience,[15] or propaganda.[16]
The conspiracy to undermine public trust in climate science is organized by industrial, political and ideological interests.[17][18][19] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates, conservative think tanks and conservative alternative media, often in the United States.[16][20][21][22] More than 90% of papers that are skeptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.[23] Climate change denial is undermining the efforts to act on or adapt to climate change, and exerts a powerful influence on politics of global warming and the manufactured global warming controversy.[24][25]
“Should this guy really have earth shaking revalation that the 98% of scientists are getting it wrong,”
Do you know what that 98% agree to? Obviously not. If you do tell us. The number is based on generalized statements that climate change exists, C02 is a greenhouse gas, the changes might be problematic and a few other things. Once one gets into specific details that 98% disappears. It is as false as Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph.
If you wish to use the 98% number, tell us exactly what ALL are agreeing to.
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=466
There are several consensus studies with very high agreement. All science institutions in the world do not deny climate change with the vast majority agreeing with the IPPC.
After Einstein published his Theory of Relativity the Nazis published a rebuttal of the “Jewish science”. It was called “100 Scientists Against Einstein” or something like that. Albert quipped “Why did they need 100? If I’d been wrong one would have been enough.”
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There’s no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.
I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. –Michael Crichton
The consensus is on agreement what the evidence tells us. The overwhelming evidence is we caused it and it is bad. If you could understand it, we wouldn’t be having this argument.
Concensus in science is just as political as concensus everywhere.
Most of the scientific community sought to censor Galleleo.
Even today the consensus in numerous areas os actual science as opposed to the voodoo that is CAGW has proven WRONG.
Recent repilcation efforts in psychology have found that most major studies that shaped psychology in the 50’s and 60’s do not replicate – They are WRONG – but these have been taught as gospel colleges, graduate programs and even high schools for decades.
A recent nobel in physics was for Crytalography work done int he 70’s that was laughed at and derided for 45 years – until it wasn’t.
1/3 of all peer reviewed papers that have been tested for replication have completely FAILED – Those papers are ABSOLUTELY wrong. Another 3rd on replication produced statistically insignifcant results.
While not blatantly false, They are also not reliable. They are not SCIENCE, they are mere weak correlation. Only 1/3 of tested papers actually replicated.
Peer Review is NOT SCIENCE.
Concensus is NOT SCIENCE.
Science is following the scientific method and subjecting your work to real verification – not just reading it to see if others agree, but actually TESTING the results.
While MOSTLY replication – when actually done, is done by Scientists, that is NOT a requirement.
Anyone is free to attempt to replicate the claims of a scientific paper. And if those claims can not be replicated – the Work is FALSE. It may be simple error, it also may be scientific Fraud.
We have plenty of both.
It is also WELL documented that the half life of science is about 15 years.
That means 50% of what Scientists believe is Certain will prove to be false in the next 15 years.
The majority of what is proven false will be RECENT science – that is ALWAYS the weakest.
Recently as the JWST came on line substantial aspects of astronomy and cosmology are being drastically revised. JWST has proven massive amounts of science either absolutely completely WRONG, or at the very least not as we expected.
As this moment something that was gospel for decades – the age of the universe – approximately 13.8B years is now in complete flux. It is LIKELY that we will conclude that the age really still is 13.8B years BUT we are going to have to throw out LOTS of other science to preserve that age.
This is NOT a bad thing. It is how things actually work. It is true of business, it is true of science.
Ignoring political and confirmation biases – which are a major problem even in science.
The vast majority of new ideas are WRONG.
Improving the world, improving science is actually HARD.
Again ignoring the politics – the FACT that the “experts” got nearly everything about Covid WRONG. is not actually surprising. Contra those like you on the left who have politicized the crap out of Science.
Science is a process for discovering the truth. We do not KNOW the truth.
Even Newton’s laws are WRONG Fortunately the errors though quite substantial, are tiny in the domain that humans live in. Therefore we can use Newton’s laws to build cars and bridges and be certain they will stand up. But we are doing so based on “science” that we KNOW is WRONG and only works on earth in NORMAL circumstances.
The fundimental problem is NOT that science gets so much wrong – that is NORMAL.
It is that left wing nuts such as yourself do not understand that Science is a journey not a destination.
It is a quest for knowledge it is NOT all the answers.
Science will NEVER have all the answers.
If you do not understand that you have no business pontificating on science.
As to climate science. The “basic” science is solid and pretty simple – and contra the idiots here pissing on a nobel prize winning physicist as not a climate scientists. Climate science particluarly and nearly all other science is physics in some form at its most fundimental level. If you are not incredibly good at physics – no one should ever let you do climate science. And the vast majority of climate scientists are failed physicists who completely suck at Math. Which is fundimental to ALL science.
The code problem with climate science is that while the physics is not to bad at an atomic level,
it becomes hundreds of orders of magnitude more complex that humans can manage at any scale.
At a global scale the mathematical complexity is far beyond the most powerful super computers in existance today – and likely beyond anything that is foreseable.
Today the CORE of CAGW is the Climate Computer models. These are deliberately simplified – because as noted climate is orders of magnitude beyond what super computers can model in real time – much less at many times faster than real time necescary to foreecast.
To solve that problem we simplify the models. We make assumptions. We convert variables that we beleive are insignificant into constants based on ASSUMPTIONS. If any of those ASSUMPTIONS are wrong – the models are off, and the error can be enormous.
And we already KNOW the models are all running WAY hot and have known that for 2 decades.
Computer model forecasts are 2.5+ std dev diverged from reality and have been for over 2 decades.
Whether you like it or not in deciding what is a FACT – the EARTH wins. REALITY wins.
The UAH July 2023 climate anomally is 0.64C That is the current deviation from the mean temperature over the past 45 years. The 13yr rolling average deviation is barely 0.2C. July 2023 was the 3rd hotest in the past 35 years. But STILL cooler than 1997.
The actual warming Trend over the past 45 years is about 0.11C/decade. That is LOWER than the 250 year average of 0.13C/decade.
Todate there exists no statistically significant evidence that Humans have made any consequential contribution to Global Warming.
Whether you like it or not the “science” is not there, the Math is not there, the statistics are not there.
The Global Climate Models are WRONG – the assumptions made to allow us to forecast on the best available super computers are WRONG. This is not a question of opinion.
The Computer Climate models DO NOT REPLICATE.
That has been true for 25 years. And still you left wing nuts have been shilling this nonsense.
This is NOT Science. Beleiving something on faith – rather than EVIDENCE and REALITY is RELIGION, not Science. And the modern left is unbelievably religious.
I would further suggest looking at some of the work of Economist David Romer – he is a new Keynesian and the spouse of Christine Romer Obama’s Cheif Economic advisor. In short he is NOT Ludwig Von Mises or Milton Friedman, he is solidly on the economic left.
Regardless, he produced an excellent paper on Economic modelling about a decade ago that applies to ALL mathematical and computer modeling.
He PROVED that any mathematical model with sufficient coeficients – and Climate models have FAR more coeficients than economic models, could easily be made to perfectly hindcast while still being completely wrong just with very minor tinkering with coeficients.
This paper is actually a very fundimental problem with pretty much ALL science that is driven by modeling – that absolutely means Climate science which is far more complicated mathematical models than economics.
Regardless, What Romer fundimentally proved is that you CAN NOT work from data to theory with complex systems. Something BTW that the Austrian Economists have been claiming for almost a century.
Outside those very narrow areas of science where you can conduct controlled experiments under laboratory conditions. Which is absolutely NOT true of climate, and economics, and most psychology and social sciences, All sceince that is derived from regressions and mathematical modeling is inherently unreliable, because the complexity of the system and the mathematics is such that you can get what appear to be correct results from completely incorrect models.
This is reality – science is HARD, successful change is HARD.
Those of you on the left do not grasp that.
You think you can decide that men can be women and everything will just work out fine.
Grow up – learn something. NEarly all change FAILS. Progress is HARD.
Actually learn how we succeeded in getting the incredible progress we have over the past 5 centuries and quit trying to destory it – because abject poverty SUCKS. and it is far easier to destroy than to build.
Concensus in science is just as political as concensus everywhere.
Most of the scientific community sought to censor Galleleo.
Science is not political, but you are. They are excellent at keeping the politics out. You want to argue science, come in with your evidence and not your political agenda. Dr. Clauser was coming in with an agenda, and no real science to back up what his points were.
-Ah, the post-Trump way to discredit debatable/alternative positions or theories: simply label and dismiss them as “political.”
I guess that lines up with dismissing or discrediting opposing views as “Racist!” or maybe “Anti-Democratic!”
Here’s a proven fact: Crying wolf has a finite existence (and a finite ability for perturbation).
No one who doesn’t want to listen doesn’t have to. CO2 coalition isn’t a legit science organization.
John, what you said is not only accurate but can be simplified further: Climate models are programmed by biased humans who use a very unscientific method I call, “Preponderance of Presumption”. What’s worse though is, while they never admit their previous gloom and doom prognostications have never materialized, they still prefer to double-down on ‘believing’ and silencing heretics, rather than ‘proving’.
“There are several consensus studies with very high agreement. “
Were they 98% agreement? No, unless selection was involved. Scientists frequently agree with a portion of a study, but not everything. Your assumption is therefore, incorrect.
Tell us the specifics of the science where there was consensus and show us the selection process in deciding who would be part of the evaluation.
Your link is meaningless. The first study doesn’t prove your contentions but it does provide you with a warning: “The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility”
Richard Feynman is one of the greatest American physicists. He would look at what you say and humbly tell you with a smile that you do not understand science.
Source?
Source for what?
It seems you have only read the headlines. I can’t do the reading for you.
YOu don’t understand the work of science. If what he says is true, then go find it. I have been looking for sources and haven’t found any. I’ll just have to assume he is faking it. Like you guys do.
“YOu don’t understand the work of science.”
If you say so, But those are the words of a pretender.
Are you pretending you know the science better than the scientists? It seems that way to me. I quote the science and if you can’t understand, its up to you to rebut me on a science level.
“Are you pretending you know the science better than the scientists? “
No. I have an open mind and listen to all, even those I disagree with. You have shut your mind off from greater than half the knowledge. That means what you know is unimportant.
“Are you pretending you know the science better than the scientists? “
No. I have an open mind and listen to all, even those I disagree with. You have shut your mind off from greater than half the knowledge. That means what you know is unimportant.
The warming of the earth is from GHGs. That is totally based in emperical evidence. Emperical evidence is incorporated into the climate models. Actually you are blinded by your biases from accepting the truth on climate change.
You want to go science on this, I’m game.
“The warming of the earth is from GHGs. That is totally based in emperical evidence. Emperical evidence is incorporated into the climate models.”
Circular reasoning, not the reasoning of an engineer.
You have super charged your ignorance. There is emperical evidnece built into climate models.
“You have super charged your ignorance. There is emperical evidnece built into climate models.”
I did not say there was no empirical evidence. Your error informs everyone else of your poor reading skills.
Empirical evidence + stupidity + your heat rather than thought in an argument = stupidity.
EPIC observes the actual albedo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory
John Clauser:
https://xkcd.com/793/