Essay by Eric Worrall
All those high profile physicists denying the overwhelming consensus on climate change.
He won a Nobel Prize. Then he started denying climate change.
John Clauser shared the Nobel in physics last year. Now he’s a self-described ‘denier’ of the overwhelming scientific consensus on a warming planet.
By Maxine Joselow
November 16, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EST…
It might have seemed like a fringe event, except forone speaker’s credentials. John F. Clauser shared the Nobel Prize in physics last year before declaring Tuesday that “there is no climate crisis” — a claim that contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus.
…
[Clauser] “There was overwhelming consensus that what I was doing was pointless” in the 1970s, he said in an interview after the news conference. “It took 50 years for my work to win the [Nobel] prize. That’s how long it takes for opinions to change.”
…
Clauser bragged that he met privately with President Biden in the Oval Office last year, when the 2022 Nobel Prize winners were invited to the White House. He said he criticized Biden’s climate and energy policies, to which he said the president replied: “Sounds like right-wing science.”
…
“There is a skeptical streak in the physics community regarding climate science,” Nadir Jeevanjee, a research physical scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote in a recent critique of Koonin’s book.
…
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/11/16/john-clauser-nobel-climate-denial/
“Sounds like right wing science”. The President of the United States invites the winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics to a meeting, but doesn’t bother to listen to what he has to say. Does President Biden immediately dismiss any scientific critique of his climate policy as “right wing science”?
Is any scientific presentation or critique which contradicts the prejudices of climate believer politicians automatically dismissed as “right wing science”?
“There is a skeptical streak in the physics community regarding climate science” – yet there is also an overwhelming climate consensus? Perhaps “right-wing science” types are implicitly excluded from consensus tallies?
No wonder the world is in such a mess.
Note: WaPo claims the White House could not confirm Clauser’s account of his meeting with the President. But I think I trust the memory of the guy who just won the Nobel Prize for Physics over the memory of Joe Biden.
Me thinks you need to be far more intelligent to be a top physicist than a top climate scientist, by and large.
Yes. Physics is the study of how the universe works, and requires a high degree of intelligence and mathematical ability. Climate Science is a very dumbed down politicised basic ecology course for computer geeks, and requires the ability to be able to switch a computer on. Who would you trust to tell you how Earth’s climate works?
One must always bear in mind that “climate scientists” are taught fuzzy math, so their opinions are automatically invalid.
And if you think their math is fuzzy, you should see their physics!
Physicists like Clauser and Happer are well able to evaluate the IR absorption of CO2 on a true physics basis using line by line absorption spectra, and determine that the resultant 3 watts per 2xCO2 is a minor factor in temperature change of the planet. It is the climate-consensus-claimers who are actually science deniers.
Fun factoid. Mann got into ‘climate science’ after he dropped out of a physics PhD program.
I know, apparently he found the maths ‘too hard’ and switched to something far easier.
Way easier to do the math when there is no hypothesis, therefore no proof is required.
So, that hokey schtick was actually honest, a real honest exhibition of his mathematical skills?
Everything IS relative, then.
No, some of it was probably down to his lack of ability but you don’t invert an entire sequence so that it fits better by accident – much of it was simply fraudulent by design.
In 1977 I was taking my advance to candidacy exams. Sherry Roland posted the question asking how CO2 can impact the climate. I could not see a connection, so I passed on that question. In the long run, I was right to not try to answer it as they is no connection. But Sherry got a Noble Prize, and I didn’t. And never will, as my thinking isn’t along political lines, I guess.
“All Cretans are Liars” said Epimodes the philosopher “and I am a Cretan. Michael Mann might have said, in a rare moment of self-insight ” and I am a Cretan cretin” One of the few statements that this joker might utter that could be believed.
Rud, I sawJZ;s comment and was going to say, Those who can’t do physics do climate science. Then I saw that you beat me to it.
It is notable that Mann has a PhD in geology and geophysics, but is not working in either field. Instead, he is working in a field for which he took few, if any, courses directly related to climatology. One might say that he didn’t “have the right stuff” to be a successful geophysicist, so he scaled back his ambitions.
“Mann then attended Yale University, intending to obtain a PhD in physics, and received both an MS and an MPhil in physics in 1991.” That is usually viewed as a ‘consolation prize’ or a form of ‘post-graduate participation trophy’ for someone in a doctoral program. What is amazing is that he has been able to segue that inauspicious beginning into so many accolades and awards. Might politics have played an unwarranted role, eclipsing actual accomplishments?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
You forgot to put “climate science” in quotes, since it isn’t actually REAL science.
Michael Mann stated that he had won a Nobel Prize, and he even displayed a photocopy of it in his office at Penn State. I wonder whether this was a display of his lack of intelligence or dishonesty (or both).
Hey, it must have impressed the National Academy of Sciences so much that they elected him to be a member.
The NAS, once a honorable and highly-respected institution . . . now headed to the dustbin of history.
If I recall correctly he and Phil Jones traded nominations to NAS and the Royal Society.
In between “pal reviewing” each other’s crap, apparently.
“I wonder whether this was a display of his lack of intelligence or dishonesty (or both).”
It was a display of his ego.
He never won it. Never got the $1,000,000 check for winning it.
There is no such thing as a ‘climate scientist’.
No one could possibly achieve higher qualifications in all the skills required to qualify as such.
I cancel some idiot’s minus, and add: “..or at least, no-one has exhibited complete knowledge on nearly enough aspects to count”.
But on the other hand, someone has to synthesise all the accumulated data, certainly expertise may be demonstrated there?
You surely don’t suggest we leave it to a committee!!
Is there even such a thing as “climate science”? Isn’t it just an mish-mash of other real sciences? So, somebody can’t be a climate scientist. They would have to be a real scientist in a real science- whose interests and work overlaps the “climate concern” so they might be able to contribute to a better understanding of SOME element of the complicated thing we call climate- which isn’t a real thing like a living thing, or a rock, or EM energy coming from a star, or anything that can actually be pinned down and studied forthwith. Good data is hard to come by. There are models and theories about some elements of the climate- but putting it all together so that a conclusion could be determined that we must trash our civilization to get to net zero is simply the newest religious cult to blight mankind.
Can you actually get a Phd in climate science? Probably- it would be a big money making part of any college. Grants to set up a new department in climate science are probably lucrative. But just how productive will Doctors of Climate Science be?
This cult is 100% out of control here in Wokeachusetts. I’m now convinced that many people here singing the party line (which is just about everybody) don’t even have the fairth but they see a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow which is so rich that they’re singing in full opera mode.
At most schools “climate science” is viewed as a part of an environmental or atmospheric science program. As many have noted, it’s somewhat subjective because of its interdisciplinary nature.
If the PhD thesis fits, one can claim just about anything and the bar is low. Jane Fonda said that she had become a climate scientist.
It was part of geography earlier in Germany
And, physical geography still sets the bars for such things as climate zones.
The correct term is “political scientist”. “Climate science” is to science as politics is to science.
Also, we’d have to know which climate they’re going to be expert in.
There are hundreds if not thousands of climates in localities all around the globe, each with their own idiosyncrasies, cycles, geological and atmospheric influences.
Diversity and all that . . .
…And feed backs.
And feed back of feed backs…
Someone stated that there are only two tides daily. I informed him (unfortunately for me), that most places have two tides a day, some have only one tide a day, and few have no tides a day. The Bay of Fundy has the largest tides. Tidal action is due to the interplay of the Moon primarily and the Sun. The ranges of tides can be explained by wave phenomenon. I was thereafter on his enemies list–to my detriment.
Some have 4 tides a day due to oscillations. I think there is a tide in Lake Ontario with a period a bit over an hour. There is another in the attached Bay of Quinte that has a higher frequency. The rivers at the east end has a tidal bore that goes upstream, like the Bay of Fundy.
By and large, yes. The associated issue is at what intelligence level (intelligence defined as high IQ, high G-Factor, Coordinated Alpha Waves, demonstrably better Functional MRI brain activity, etc.) does introspection demand a constant analysis of personal ideas, especially when faced with peer pressure from the consensus nonsense? Physicists are notable for higher intelligence (this fact well presented in the book “The Manhattan Project”) and therefore probably more likely to think something through rather than go along with the consensus. Clauser versus Biden? Alex, I’ll take…….
Climatology is a field of study that is only slightly less respectable than Scientology
off topic
Keeping an eye on the regions when it comes to climate change
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/11/231106134804.htm
Sounds like they’re worried about discrepancies. Now they have to rationalize them away.
Global temperature trends? Since a temperature series does only on thing over a short period, namely either increase or decrease, climate models have a 50% probability of being correct purely by chance.
Political science in this sense is treacherous. With the Scopes Monkey Trial, revisionism has cast William Jennings Bryan as a right winger. Which ignores that his three runs for President were on the then left wing of the Democratic Party.
I hope to live long enough for the Democrats or Labour to claim The Green New Deal or Net Zero was really a Republican or Conservative movement, and that the party never actually supported that.
One of my great grandfathers was a campaigner for WJB. Each believed in “sound money,” which was a major topic of the time. In that respect, both were conservative.
One of my great grandfathers ran for Mayor of Rock Springs Wyoming on the Socialist Labor Party ticket.
The issue with “free silver” was that the rate between gold and silver decidedly overvalued silver, thus Bryan was advocating an inflationary policy. The US in the late 1800’s was in a deflationary cycle, with prices in general declining. So if one owed a debt in a fixed amount, as did many farmers, inflation would seem a good thing.
Thanks. Defining the ratio of value of silver to gold was definitely not a free market principle. Still, the currency was to be backed by something tangible.
As a child, I recall seeing a book on banking that my great grandfather wrote. I should try to find a copy to better understand what his thinking about.
Of course, someone should have just changed the exchange rate between silver and gold to better reflect the then current market. Knowing economics and being a successful politician are apparently incompatible.
‘Of course, someone should have just changed the exchange rate between silver and gold to better reflect the then current market.’
The problem there is that the gold / silver exchange rate fluctuates with time. Better to have allowed two separate currencies, each redeemable for a specific amount of metal, and let the market determine the appropriate prices of goods and services with respect to each.
That is the problem with using metals as currency, especially several metals.
They’re already trying to claim that both Jim Crow and Nazism are right wing/Republican.
The 1924 Democratic National Convention was nicknamed the Klanbake.
Wow! Almost 100 years later, and the DemoKKKrats are still the party of Krime, Korruption and Kover-ups! And now they have transitioned the FBI into the KGB!
One of the great intellectual frauds of our time is considering things like Political Science to be science. It is no such thing. It’s a string of unsubstantiated beliefs strung together into a narrative.Whatever they are the so-called social sciences are NOT science. Their use of mathematics and the scientific method of reproducible results is at most only a casual acquaintance.
Their use of statistics as a smokescreen to hide the lack of factual evidence. Which is almost exactly how climate enthusiasts work as well.
I was using “political science” ironically. I do agree that political science is not all that scientific.
My recollection of the one politicial ‘science’ course I ever took 48 years ago was that it was nothing more than marxist dogma dressed up with a facade of crude arithmetic. It was almost obsessively concerned about the minor doings of Kremlin politics and the operation of the Soviet Central Party Committee. If this was an example of Poli Sci then it was nothing more than a meaningless exercise in USSR hagiography.
And this rubbish was served up in a highly respectable university. Well, if it was mindless garbage half a century ago, it is unlikely to be much better now.
Which leads me to an interesting question. How do you have a supposed discipline removed from a university? After all, we no longer pretend that education should include the Essences or the Zodiac. Soothsaying is no longer on the curricula, except how statistics are abused by various infamous climatologists.
Well Exeter University in the UK has recently launched an MA in Magic and Occult Science and has a rabid Climate Science department. Not sure if they are going to merge the courses or not 🙂
Laughing my head off! I like the idea!
I think you’ll find that Astrology, under different names, is a popular course in many Universities across the Western world. It’s only a matter of time before somebody runs a course in interpreting tealeaves or entrails.
“There is a sceptical streak in the physics community regarding climate science.” I should damn well hope so; I would prefer that there was a sceptical streak in the entire scientific community as it should be in the scientific method, but that’s too much to hope for in this time of dumbed down, politicised science. Long may the physics community keep their sceptical streak.
I can see how Clauser’s skeptical view on climate “science” is distressing to them. They can’t write off climate skeptics as just some old crooks screaming at their computers.
RP:
Reading the transcript of the 2014 Climate Seminar that Koonin moderated you can see his “Aha!” moment [during John Christy’s presentation]. IIRC it was Christy’s spaghetti graph that triggered
a Why haven’t we seen this before now?! question.
Scientists must remain skeptical, but they also need access to all the data & debate.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf
and a nice review of it (with multiple other links – Thanks Andy May!):
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/a-summary-of-the-aps-workshop-on-climate-change/
Yes, I saved this 100 page debate because it was rare to have a debate on this topic and because of the qualifications of those involved. Read it again, several times since.
Thoroughly recommended. The modellers demonstrated why their work was flawed. Geoff S
“There is a sceptical streak in the physics community regarding climate science.”
Working at SLAC, I never saw it. Just the opposite.
Physicists are trained to require evidence before forming a postulate. That is very inconvenient for climatistas.
The tribe of politicians, celebrities and fabulously rich elites decide what they think is true, or at least convenient to have people believe is true. Then they pay and coerce corrupt “academics” to create arguments and false evidence to support those “preclusions”. Finally they shout down everyone, no matter what their credentials or the solidity of their evidence who make any contrary claims. It would be great if the drivers of this propaganda exercise are taking a similar approach to decisions about their own wellbeing. Their numbers will dwindle rapidly.
I don’t think academics like Mann need ‘coercion’, the money seems to be quite enough on its own.
I think you mispelled “fatuously”
Before spouting forth for the Washington Post the cute phrase “overwhelming scientific consensus”, Maxine Joselow should first read up on The Scientific Method—you know, the basis of all real science—which does not contain any reference to obtaining a “consensus” as a step in either sustaining or advancing scientific knowledge.
Yeah, with “reporting” like that fronted by Ms. Jaselow and the WaPo, it’s no wonder the world is in such a mess.
A rapid decline in consensus plays an important role in overturning a paradigm, which seems to advance our understanding of the world. Once the consensus reaches a very high number, it seems it has no place to go except down.
“A rapid decline in consensus plays an important role in overturning a paradigm . . .”
Well, according to Thomas Kuhn’s landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, it appears more that it is the introduction of a new idea or theory that is in stark contrast to an existing, commonly-accepted scientific belief/paradigm that initiates the overturning of that older paradigm.
In fact, Kuhn—who introduced the term “paradigm shift”—argues that it generally requires the “passing of the old guard”, one or two generations, for the “older scientists” to no longer be around or in a position of power to protest and roll logs in the path of the new, revolutionary idea taking hold, as it must inevitably if it holds great truth.
Commonly cited examples of this:
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Bohr, Plank, Einstein, Heisenberg, Darwin, Mendel, Alfred Wegener . . . the list goes on and on.
As someone once said. Science advances, one funeral at a time.
Excellent! I wish I had thought of that adage.
Do all introductions of a new idea or theory result in a paradigm shift? Certainly not! It is a necessary, but not sufficient event to overturn existing paradigms.
Please note my mention of this important caveat:
“. . . of the new, revolutionary idea taking hold, as it must inevitably if it holds great truth.”
As an example, the alarmism over the theory of “CO2 impacting climate to the point of it becoming an existential threat” DOES NOT hold great truth.
A similar example: the theory/paradigm of cold fusion physics also turned out to not have great truth.
So yes, not all new ideas or theories result in paradigm shifts . . . Kuhn never implied such in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Clauser bragged that he met privately with President Biden in the Oval Office last year, when the 2022 Nobel Prize winners were invited to the White House. He said he criticized Biden’s climate and energy policies, to which he said the president replied: “Sounds like right-wing science.”
https://youtu.be/GZKWEx4b7Go
Well there is no such thing! Science is unpolitical. It can be wrong/incomplete. So if anybody has an issue with Clausers statement they can try to improve it regardless which direction they are leaning. Until then the last valid argument is king in science.
It speaks to Biden’s view of science, and his lack of understanding of the Scientific Method.
“right-wing science” is a hard-core Marxist statement. People today think of Marxism as a mistaken economic theory; it isn’t that at all. It is a complete system of philosophy which bases its core – epistemology, or the philosophy of knowledge – on class. Knowledge of the world is acquired through the filter of one’s class, and thus reality is different for different classes. Classes can be anything the Marxist likes, and “right-wing” is certainly one of them. It’s a lot like “bourgeoisie” was to Marx and his followers. People like Lysenko were able to get their scientific “theories” labelled as “proletarian science”, and using the force of government to not only suppress the competing ideas of other scientists, but have those other scientists imprisoned and even executed. We haven’t quite reached that state here in America, but it is rapidly approaching when a U.S. President uses a hard-core Marxist trope to dismiss a genuine scientist’s statement.
“Sounds like right-wing science” ??????
After listening to his presentation, to me it “Sounds like the RIGHT
-wingscience.”Science must equal the TRUTH or else it is not science…that’s the beauty of it.
antigtiff, I have to very respectfully disagree with you. Science doesn’t equal the truth. The whole purpose of science and the scientific method is to objectively and dispassionately discover the truth.
Phil,
“Truth” is a concept that is not defined in science. It is a thought, a catalyst to encourage proper scientists to strive for ever better understanding.
It is ironic that politicians mention the need for truth when the history of politics is studded with lies. Geoff S
I absolutely agree. I was using “truth” as kind of a shorthand. Science is really looking for answers. But before one searches for an answer one has to ask a question, usually about some phenomenon that they don’t understand. When “science must equal the TRUTH” you have scientism.
The Nazis laid into Einstein’s theories because it was “Jewish Science” There is the true measure of the shambling moron who squats in the WhiteHouse
…and they failed to build an atom bomb precisely because they disdained “Jewish” Physics.
I’m currently attending a course being conducted by an emeritus prof of physics who held posts in 3 major universities over the course of his distinguished career.
His responses to many attendees’ questions are very refreshing and encouraging.
Typically he goes –
“well, the published research so far seems to provide various lines of thought, somewhat speculative in my view. So my answer to your question at this stage is – we just don’t know. Certainly not enough to base life or death decisions on”.
Another Little Ice Age may be starting as predicted by NOAA’s dropping Sunspot Number.
NOAA has the Sunspot Dropping to zero and staying there until at least 2040 when their forecast ends.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/predicted-sunspot-number-and-radio-flux
The Sunspot Number has been dropping but it looks like faster than NOAA predicted.
https://www.met.gov.my/en/pencerapan/cuaca-angkasa/
The Washington post still thinks “science” is a democracy.
Too bad ALL scientific advances in knowledge in the last 400 years had no consensus.
Perhaps Journalists will stop with the propaganda spewing and advance someday too.
There is no left wing science. The left wing is incompatible with the scientific method.
Reptilian brains dominated by emotional responses to events in their lives rather than with rational examination of the events.
Right wing science. It’s already occurred to me some time ago that this kind thinking is going to end up discrediting scientists on the left for a very long time
when the walls come tumbling down on the consensus.
It is a troubling insight into the minds of supporters of this meme that what they actually think should happen legitimizes their science, even to the point of openly altering data to fit the theory, rejecting unfavorable data points, p-hacking noise to squeeze out a signal, heralding unsupported conclusions. This is the chief activity of consensus climate.
If you don’t agree…. code name right wing etc
Heresy
Cancellation – where possible
Public burning at the stake in the meejah and on social media
If that means science is essentially a free-enterprise endeavour as opposed to a collection of assertions imposed by authority (e.g. Lysenkoism), Biden is unwittingly correct.
“there is no climate crisis” — a claim that contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus.
Who’s the true believer in the ‘overwhelming scientific consensus’? No one in the scientific field. Mob rule of groupthink has no bearing on it. Science is Galileo, not Gavin Newsom.
There are so many things to say about this and so little time and space in which to say it. So many people simply do not understand the essential nature of physics (or the other basic sciences such as chemistry and biology). Physicists do not care about consensus; in fact, nothing is more suspect to a physicist. So many quotes apply and so little space. Feynman of course who said things like “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” or “if you thought science was certain, well that is just a mistake on your part” or “if a theory disagrees with experiment, it doesn’t matter how smart you are or what your name is, or how beautiful the theory is, then it is wrong, in that simple statement is the key to science” In these quotes he was really talking about physics rather than what has become the notion of “science.” Rutherford is attributed (perhaps not precisely) with saying “if your experiment needs statistics, then you ought to have done a better experiment.” I would paraphrase that statement for the present issue as “if your discipline needs ‘science’ appended to the end of it, then you ought to be doing real science instead.”
Non-physicists just don’t get the inherently skeptical and unbelieving nature of physics, aiming simply to find theories that are not wrong so far with respect to existing data, and not having a driving need to be “right”. I had the good fortune to study under and know several Manhattan project physicists and learned from them that the greatest joy of the work of physics is finding out you (and the rest of the “consensus”) are wrong. Only by being wrong can a physicist learn something and correct his or her theories. If one is right all the time one never learns anything, period. John Wheeler famously said “the job of a theoretical physicist is to make as many mistakes as he can as fast as he can.” This notion that some theory or hypothesis must be defended to the death is completely alien to physics and the other hard sciences. (That is not to say that personal egos don’t get involved sometimes. They do occasionally, but that is a bit different.) The proponents of “the Science” simply don’t get it, or perhaps refuse to get it. They could not be farther from science when they demand adherence to a consensus or dismiss an alternative view out of hand.
As far as dismissing a statement of anything as “right wing science” or any other kind of “bad science”, this is not new. Einstein’s relativity theories were dismissed for a decade or two by many European countries as being just “Jewish science” and if not for Eddington the dismissal could have lasted longer. The true deniers are those who dismiss any proposed theory as “bad science” for political reasons, without regard for the experimental evidence, and they are just as wrong (I hesitate to use the word, but “stupid” applies quite well), as claiming anything politically incorrect is “right wing science.”
+100
Rah, excellent comment.
it was Fah, not Rah. Or maybe it was Bee..
“Rutherford is attributed (perhaps not precisely) with saying “if your experiment needs statistics, then you ought to have done a better experiment.””
My own personal, and independently-arrived at, version of Rutherford, has always been:
“The greater your need for statistics to show your result, the less likely it is that your result will be important.”
High statistical significance does not show that data proves anything causal. Something which appears misunderstood or ignored in many hundreds of biomedical papers I have read.
There is real science…
… then there is “leftist” non-science. !
Here is the thing. We common people have to let brave people like Clauser know that we have their back. We will not sit on our keisters and allow bad people to abuse them. We are winning but we can’t do it without people like Clauser.
That Biden could come up with the coherent, although rationally meaningless, comment on the spur of the moment brings some skepticism to the concept that he in mentally deficient. The quote is of the type the best politicians use to deflect from any meaningful response.
It may have been an autonomic response, indicating that he has been thoroughly indoctrinated.
Biden can deflect in his sleep. It comes naturally to him. His mental problems haven’t shaken the ideology out of him yet.
Well I guess Galileo practiced “right wing science” then.
““Sounds like right-wing science.””
We now seem to be in territory not experienced since the 1930s and Nazi Germany. One of the slurs thrown by prominent Nazis in the 1930s was that the territory being explored and defined by people like Albert Einstein, Lise Meitner and a host of others was that they were engaged in “Jewish science”. The reference to consensus science can mean that there is no need to consult the views of “non persons”.
As long as the Klimate Kult continues, the world will be in greater and greater danger of irrationality such as this.
““There is a skeptical streak in the physics community regarding climate science,” Nadir Jeevanjee, a research physical scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote in a recent critique of Koonin’s book.”
Hmm … “a skeptical streak‘ in the hard science of physics?
Do the make up the “3%” of the “97%”?
You never hear about a skeptic becoming an AGW believer. The skeptics can only grow.
I think it was Richard Muller of Berkley Earth fame who claimed to have been a climate skeptic and been converted to the “consensus” by the temperature data. Trouble was that diligent skeptics were able to dig up old statements by Muller the showed he embraced man-made climate change well before the alleged conversion. He did do nice smack-down on Mann, though.
Physics is so simple, it can largely be reduced to mathematics–which makes it the hardest science that only a few understand. We will never reduce the greenie damage via talking physics or chemistry.
Today I found a website on the value of carbon dioxide for human longevity and health. This means it is life and death we get the truth across to people. Check this out: https://raypeat.com
since the real goal of the climate totalitarians is the destruction of capitalism and Western civilization no amount of contrary facts will change their minds
Science is neither right-wing nor left-wing, science just is.
Sadly, scientists, especially of the climate kind appear to be extremely left-wing
For those who like to compile a list of oxymorons, I suggest adding the phrase “left wing science.”
You can tell when it’s left wing science. They have many hypotheses and theories and everytime they test them they fail.
I’m tired of hearing science consensus. Science isn’t about consensus. Politics is about consensus.