Tuesday, 6 June 2017

Winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics: "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"

SHARE


PLEASE listen to this comprehensive debunking of climate change and global warming by a Nobel Prize winning physicist. Professor Giaever says the temperature of the earth has supposedly risen in 150 years by 0.8%, according to received opinion, though he says that in fact we don't know. If true this means virtual stability. Nothing to worry about. He is one of the most eminent physicists alive today. He talks very well, is funny and engaging. The things he says should not be controversial. They are, because climate change is a form of religion rather than a scientific study, for too many people.

Now it is perfectly true that the professor is in a minority among American physicists who have opined on the subject. But
 one great physicist who thinks there's nothing to worry about is enough for me to stop worrying. In fact there are a fair number of scientists who agree with him. The much quoted 97 percent of scientists who believe in climate change is an untrue story.


What I learnt at university is that the greater number of history lecturers are not original thinkers. The word groupthink had not been coined then but the phenomenon existed. The same is true in the hard sciences too, it seems. The fact that Oxford and Cambridge dons mostly want Jeremy Corbyn to be Prime Minister confirms my point.


It has been a great surprise to me to discover that there are intelligent people who still seriously worry about climate change. It's especially a big thing among Americans because Mr Obama made climate change his priority. I haven't heard any Romanians mention the subject except as a source of EU money and money from clients, but some younger ones do because it is what they are taught.

7 comments:

  1. I think that, before suggesting any government intervention to save the planet, the following questions must be asked: is the climate warming? (YES) by how much? (BY A SMALLER AMOUNT THAN ALARMISTS CLAIM) is it caused by humans? (POSSIBLY, PARTIALLY) what are the costs and benefits? (THE COSTS ARE ALWAYS EMPHASIZED, NOBODY TALKS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS - HEALTHIER POPULATION DUE TO SPENDING MORE TIME OUTDOORS, CHEAPER GRAINS SINCE NEW AREAS IN CANADA/RUSSIA COULD POTENTIALLY OPEN UP TO AGRICULTURE, FEWER HEATING COSTS IN WINTER, ETC). In reality, there are so many people invested in the "human-caused catastrophic climate warming which only has costs but no benefits" in the political sphere across the world, that it has become yet another way for the anointed to suck off wealth from those producing it. Governments also love it, because it justifies yet another power grab - without being as messy or destabilizing as terrorism. I wouldn't go as far as to call it a con, but too many livelihoods in Washington and Brussels depend on the "climate change" industry, and they are more powerful politically than the productive masses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Climate Change from a Geologists point of view:

    https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e7_1420745413

    ReplyDelete
  3. I watched 10' of the video before stopping, exasperated with Professor Giaever's lack of a coherent argument. In less than 10' he bounced between "no global warming" to "so what there's global warming" because of more paving. If you can find any, please send me his peer-reviewed publications on this topic. And while it's impressive that he resigned his membership in the American Physical Society over this issue, I'd wager---and we're all gambling here---on the majority of that organization and like organizations over him to have a coherent, tested set of conclusions that provide reasoned, evidence-backed reasons for action. (And you can throw in Freeman Dyson, too, if you like.) Giaever accuses his opponents of "religion" about this, but me thinks he does protest too much. He's the one who seems to be doing the wishful (and sloppy) thinking here.

    ReplyDelete
  4. One Nobel prize winning physicist is enough to offset the many who take the opposite line, in my opinion, but some other eminent scientists also think it's all a false alarm. The ideology of climate change (it is an ideology because it is no longer susceptible to scientific disproof) reminds me of Whittaker Chambers's explanation of Communism as 'in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: 'Ye shall be as gods.' It is the great alternative faith of mankind. Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision. Other ages have had great visions. They have always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man's relationship to God. The Communists vision is the vision of Man without God. It is the vision of man's mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world."
    If the climate is changing - and Bucharest's taxi drivers seem unanimous that it is this, and if human activity has some part in the process, this does not mean human activity is of crucial importance or that we can prevent warming. We are clearly living in the end of an Ice Age. This was clear to me, who hates physics, as soon as climate change was first bruited abroad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, a Nobel for physics doesn't off-set those more prominent persons who specialize in climate science. 2nd, no one--certainly not me--thinks that current theories (and they are theories, predictions) about climate science are beyond "disproof." However, as we know from the tobacco industry and law courts (my bailiwick), standards of proof can be used to dissuade action. But we shouldn't be acting as if we were proving a crime (although later generations may see our inaction as such), but on whether we are acting as a reasonable person should act given our current state of knowledge about probable consequences and the best-estimated future if our current course of conduct continues. All human action is subject to hubris, but that should go without saying. That's why we seek and should cultivate open communication. And that climate changes even without human action also goes without saying, but we're dealing with a complex, multi-factored, multi-causal system (climate, that is) that is extremely challenging. If we humans are altering the planet, as most informed, qualified scientists believe, then we have to ask what our duty is to ourselves and our posterity to act reasonably on this knowledge.

      Delete
  5. It is not very scientific to use relative changes when talking about temperature. A 10% increase makes 10 degrees Celsius become 11C. However if we convert the 10C in Fahrenheit we get 50F. Applying the 10% to 50F we get 55F. Back to Celsius, the 55F give us 12.7C. Same for Kelvin, the scale used in science: 10C is 283 Kelvin. Applying 10% to 283K we get 311.3K. Back to Celsius that gives us 38.7C.

    And if the average temperature on earth were 1 Celsius, then an absolute modification of 1 degree would give us a 100% increase.

    Which reminds me of the joke: "Today there're 0 degrees Celsius. Tomorrow it'll be twice as cold."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adding ten percent to 50 Fahrenheit does not produce 55 percent.

      Delete