Nobel Physicist Speaks Out Against Climate Change Hoax

The only source I can find for this right now is this Washington Post piece. Heard about it on the talk radio earlier today.
www.washingtonpost.com...

BALTIMORE — During a fiery news conference at the Four Seasons hotel here Tuesday, speakers denounced climate change as a hoax perpetrated by a “global cabal” including the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and many leaders of the Catholic Church.

It might have seemed like a fringe event, except for one speaker’s credentials. John F. Clauser had 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.

The event showcased the remarkable shift that Clauser, 80, has undergone since winning one of the world’s most prestigious awards for his groundbreaking experiments with light particles in the 1970s. His recent denial of global warming has alarmed top climate scientists, who warn that he is using his stature to mislead the public about a planetary emergency.

Clauser, who has a booming voice and white hair he often leaves uncombed, has brushed off these concerns. He contends that skepticism is a key part of the scientific process.

“There was overwhelming consensus that what I was doing was pointless” in the ’70s, he said in an interview after the news conference. “It took 50 years for my work to win the prize. That’s how long it takes for opinions to change.”

Thank you Mr. Clauser. I used to believe in that hoax myself, until I was able to muddle through the science and detect the false bill of goods we are being sold on this subject. Like the fact that the numbers never get there, to those dangerous deadly levels of CO2. Like the fact that weather changes are cyclical, and have little to do with man's activities. Discussions that I saw here on the forum helped evolve my viewpoint. Thanks to those who participated in that discussion so many years ago.

Don't get me wrong, the environment should be cared for and properly stewarded. Protected even. That doesn't mean that we aren't being lied to with the mainstream narrative of anthropogenic climate change though. We are being lied to.

It sure would be nice if we could get past this wall of lies and on to addressing the real environmental issues. Things like cleaning up actual pollution, for instance.

Pretty sure this prominent physicist and nobel prize winner is only one of many who are scientifically educated and shares this point of view. Discuss.

I predict one of two things. This gentleman will either become embroiled in multiple allegations of sexual wrongdoings or accidentally brutally stab himself to death while shaving.

a reply to: badcabbie

I agree.
The environment is fine.

The problem is, they are keeping us from looking at the fact that we should be cleaning up our mess. Plastics, toxic chemicals, ect.
All the stuff they have no major answer for, and are actually contributing to, with their new "Green" policies.


And too many have fallen for it.

Think of the mindset the gullible had when Al Gore came out with his Inconvenient Truth movie. MANY people fully believed it, in the "science" behind it, and tried to act on it which is the scary part.

None of Al Gore's predictions came true.

If the democrats, just through coincidence, had a large majority in Congress back then, they could have passed lots of restrictions and bans to "fix" the problem (and lower your quality of life). And today they would be proclaiming "See, we were right! We fixed the problem because there is still ice in the arctic and snow on Mt Kilimanjaro!"
Except they wouldn't have been right because those predictions were never going to come to pass. But we'd have no way of knowing that.

They like to push global warming like it's as well studied as every other science but this is false they have no control no scale model they don't even have all the variables

That's not science anyone who believes otherwise is a fool

originally posted by: chiefsmom
I agree.
The environment is fine.

The problem is, they are keeping us from looking at the fact that we should be cleaning up our mess. Plastics, toxic chemicals, ect.
All the stuff they have no major answer for, and are actually contributing to, with their new "Green" policies.


And too many have fallen for it.

Yeah the fish are literally turning trans in my local river due to all the toxic runoff.

We have ice core samples from Antarctica that go back 800,000 years, that show everything is cyclical and on point with past fluctuations.

What happens is that we take that near-million year reading and focus on the last 50 years, eliminating 99.9% of the data set, and say "look, it's increasing rapidly! We're all going to die!"

Glad to see people with credentials coming forward and sounding the alarm... against the alarm? The anti-alarm? Unalarm-alarm.

a reply to: badcabbie

Where is Mr. Clauser's research paper on climate change being a hoax. I can't find it anywhere. Or is he just theorizing that climate change is just spooky non-action at a distance.

originally posted by: dothedew
We have ice core samples from Antarctica that go back 800,000 years, that show everything is cyclical and on point with past fluctuations.

Yes, but have we ever had the human population before that we have today -- and the unnatural chemicals infiltrating our air - land - and sea?

Somehow, I doubt that matches up with "what was" 800,000 years ago.

a reply to: Annee

Everyone would know it did, if the climate scientists in all of their unwavering, clearly unbiased methodology and disclosure of such, would include that information for the general public.

But they don't, do they? Weird how that works.

a reply to: badcabbie

I dunno, Cabbie. One has to admit that 'planetary emergency' has a certain ring to it.

Cheers

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: badcabbie

Where is Mr. Clauser's research paper on climate change being a hoax. I can't find it anywhere. Or is he just theorizing that climate change is just spooky non-action at a distance.

Clauser doesn't do climate research. He simply has strong opinions about the matter. His strongest opinion is that he's always the smartest guy in the room and that everybody else's research is wrong. Unfortunately, once you give someone a Nobel Prize, it simply amplifies their intrinsic Dunning-Kruger tendencies. Pretty soon he'll be on TV talks shows telling us all about legalizing Marijuana and other stuff he doesn't know anything about.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: badcabbie

Where is Mr. Clauser's research paper on climate change being a hoax. I can't find it anywhere. Or is he just theorizing that climate change is just spooky non-action at a distance.

Clauser doesn't do climate research. He simply has strong opinions about the matter. His strongest opinion is that he's always the smartest guy in the room and that everybody else's research is wrong. Unfortunately, once you give someone a Nobel Prize, it simply amplifies their intrinsic Dunning-Kruger tendencies. Pretty soon he'll be on TV talks shows telling us all about legalizing Marijuana and other stuff he doesn't know anything about.

Bravo Bravo

a reply to: Annee

Here is the thing... what you said quoted below isnt the climate change argument.

and the unnatural chemicals infiltrating our air - land - and sea?

I dont know a single parent that wouldnt like to clean things up for their children to have a healthier better life, and if that argument had been made instead of al gore and his fear mongering I bet we would be a lot further along that road.

a reply to: Boomer1947

totally agree. Once Obama got his prize, he thought his ideas were worth listening to as well. They weren't.

If the environmental thing was real..

First they would make companies, who are the major cause of pollution and other environmental cases, limit or stop their productions, everything they have done for their "going green" initiative has made companies even richer, that should be the first question of why when it comes to dealing with this.

Second notice how it's always your fault, "you, you you" it's never them, at the end of the day, someone, whether it was an individuals ideas or a collective groups ideas, someone shaped society and how it functions, from it's laws to day to day basis.

If it was really "your" fault, they would limit companies like apple creating a new phone every 6-12 months, resulting in more waste and making a bigger dent in the environment, they would shorten the days of work the average person has to work so they don't burn petrol everyday going to work and making a dent in the environment and give a universal basic income, they would teach the kids the importance of farming and agriculture, instead of the go woke or go broke ideology and limit their IQ at such an early age and much much more.

This environmental thing is just a front to get you to eat bugs and be an even bigger consumer to make companies richer. If it was truly "my" fault, then take these things away, i don't want them, take all these choices and leave me with one choice, I'm fine with that. For example take all these phones away and leave me with one universal phone, but they won't will they, cause they care about the environment so much, but not when it comes to business, when it comes to business, they would nuke the planet and everyone in it, so tell me more about this environmental thing please.

Morale of the story, if we are really ruining the planet, then so be it. Let mother nature run its course, after all the earth has been around supposedly for 4+ billion years, so i laugh in the face of anyone who tells me, something as idiotic as humans can destroy the planet, i mean maybe if we were a higher tier civilization, but we just got out of the sticks and stones age. That is like a blink of an eye compared to 4 billion years.

More scientists seem to be coming out against the CAGW-scam. Good to see.

a reply to: Annee

It does not. CO2 and CH4 are rising faster now than anytime in the million + years. This is a direct result of human activity, CO2 of course from our burning of fossil fuels for energy, with CH4 coming from a variety of sources.

Does this mean the world will be inhabitable in the next 100 years++? Absolutely not! 1000 years Probably not...but eventually if we keep it up, there will be consequences that are serious if not catastrophic, however that threat is not imminent.

However we need to recognize there is a problem and our activity is changing the atmosphere and ultimately climate dues to the nature of these compounds, warming being the most obvious.

I think we all can agree pollution is bad and we should limit it as best we can. This applies to CO2 and CH4 emissions too.

The biggest issue is the oil industry is worth over 1 trillion a year, they suppress alternative sources of energy in order to keep selling us fuel for our cars, powerplants, ect.

We deserve to have the suppressed clean energy solutions that curve our pollution and ultimately our impact on this planet.

a reply to: jrod

PM4U

What really convinced me, that it's just a narrative for political power and not the real state of affairs, was when I was taking geology classes at one of the most left wing, liberal, woke (however u wanna label it) colleges in the country (CU boulder). During those geology classes professors showed data from ice cores and other studies that definitively show global temp is cyclical. It gets hot it gets cold it gets hot it get cold a natural state of change for thr temp of the earth. The temp is never stable over long periods of time that's not really possible with how the energy cycle works which is prob most fundemental process involved in this topic. Energy in equals energy out.

The real crisis would be if we had global cooling. Space is rather cold so keeping our planet warm is the most important and requires the most work since there is a constant drain of heat into cold space. The energy drain by coldness of space must be offset by energy put into the system.

Anyways, life flourishes when the earth is warm. The last time there were giant animals on the planet was when the temp was much warmer than today and co2 was much higher. The only way to support giant animals is to have plenty of plants available that can be eaten by herbivores. More herbivores is more prey for predators. All if this is possible because greater co2 levels means more plant growth which provides more food for herbivores etc.

Co2 is not the enemy. Unless u end up with a majority co2 in the air vs other gasses then there is a real problem. But as long as we dont cut down all the trees (which seems to he someone goal) co2 cant become majority of the air we breathe. Carbon is not the enemy. When they say we need to eliminate carbon watch out cause that means humans too. We are carbon bases life forms that exhale co2 with every breath. So there is no way to eradicate co2 from the atmosphere without eradicating the people. If u look hard enough it tends to turnout that the people or the head of a group that's really out there talking about we need to eliminate carbon they almost always have a back ground thats associated with eugenics in some capacity. Coincidence? These days I tend to think not.