Yet another Nobel physicst says global warming is fake

[Anonymous No.15560827]

John Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, says global warming is fake.

During his speech at the “Quantum Korea 2023” event, Dr. John Clauser said, “I don’t believe there is a climate crisis,” according to a report by Seoul Economic Daily that has been translated into English by the CO2 Coalition.

Clauser added that “key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by approximately 200 times” and accused the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of spreading misinformation.

In his keynote speech addressed to young Korean scientists and students, Clauser said that “Misinformation is being spread by those with political and opportunistic motives.”

“Even chatbots like ChatGPT can be better at lying than humans,” he said, adding that “distinguishing truth from falsehood is a challenging task for both humans and computers.”

“In an era of rapid advancement in AI technology, the role of scientists as judges is necessary,” he said, urging scientists to fulfill their role by verifying information and educating the public about it.

Clauser won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022, alongside two other scientists, for his work in the field of quantum mechanics. In May 2023, the renowned physicist joined the board of directors of the CO2 Coalition, a scientific organization that highlights the benefits of CO2 for the environment and criticizes alarmist climate models.

Clauser’s studies of the science of climate provide strong evidence that there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world.

Commenting on climate alarmism, Clauser has said that “The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people.”

translation of PDF
https://co2coalition.org/news/nobel-laureate-dr-john-clauser-i-dont-believe-there-is-a-climate-crisis/

[Anonymous No.15560829]

>>15560827
>Up next: famous geochemist explains the psychology of mental disorders

[Anonymous No.15560847]

>>15560829
Physicists are the most qualified people to discuss the climate.

[Anonymous No.15560880]

>>15560847
Before "climate science" existed, it was a branch of physics called "atmospheric physics" while later morphed into "atmospheric science" and finally to it's current form, all of the mathematical and scientific rigor was stripped away in the process. Its gotten so bad that "climate science" students are no longer taught basic thermodynamics so they're fundamentally incapable of understanding key atmospheric concepts such as convection.

[Anonymous No.15560891]

climate science is modelling. it's not really science, it's applied statistics and predictions.

it's hard to test the efficiency of the model, same way it's hard to say what the temperature range will be in 30 days. humans probably are warming the climate or in general should figure out a way to control it because it's ridiculous to die randomly due to some catastrophe or collapse of the water and air cycles.

the conversation around climate should be what are ways for humans to geoengineer the earth. probably can be done with satellites and mirrors, maybe nuking volcanoes.

[Anonymous No.15560939]

>>15560847
Lol no

[Anonymous No.15560983]

>>15560880
This.

[Anonymous No.15560998]

Who do you trust to give you an accurate assessment of big thermodynamics analysis like the earth's climate, Nobel laureate physicist or picrel who didn't graduate high school and can't even do basic algebra?

[Anonymous No.15561001]

>>15560998
Who's that guy?

[Anonymous No.15561003]

>>15560847
Tell me more about the quantum physics of climate change

[Anonymous No.15561005]

>>15560998
>/pol/ thinks you can only listen to non-experts
How about I listen to the experts instead?

[Anonymous No.15561007]

>>15561005
The experts say climate change is fake and a grift. >>15560827

[Anonymous No.15561056]

>>15561003
is there a feynman diagram for photosynthesis?

[Anonymous No.15561106]

>>15560998
Depends on who you ask. Me or my other head?

[Anonymous No.15561470]

Renown astrophsycist & mathematician Freeman Dyson was certain that global warming is fake. Dyson's resumé is impeccable, a professor at The Institute for Advanced Study, noteworthy and important contributions to number theory, quantum mechanics, nuclear power as well as climate science, which he studied and contributed to for half a century

Here's a video of him saying global warming is fake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mmI6DorL_Y

Here he is saying its fake in writing
https://www.edge.org/conversation/heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society
>My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

[Anonymous No.15561484]

>>15560829
>psychology of mental disorders
Only a non-psychiatrist can talk about this. Because a psychiatrist doesn't even recognize a man cutting off his own dick as mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15561488]

>On May 8, 2023, Clauser was elected to the Board of Directors of the CO2 Coalition, a non-profit composed largely of scientists who disagree with the claimed consensus of climate change and global warming.
>The CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank focusing on defense and climate issues which closed in 2015. William O'Keefe, a chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute and former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, continued as CEO of the CO2 Coalition.
>The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the largest U.S. trade association for the oil and natural gas industry. It claims to represent nearly 600 corporations involved in production, refinement, distribution, and many other aspects of the petroleum industry.
Gee, I wonder why that guy would stick to a certain narrative that fossil fuels aren't bad. Following the money is trivial on that one.

[it goes in all fields No.15561490]

>>15560827
>>15560998
>you can't trust the experts they're lying, except when this expert agrees with what I already believe

[Anonymous No.15561494]

>>15560998
Sorry chud, there's no time to waste on boomer shit like algebra when global warming is threatening our lives. Climate change is simple to understand. Climate gets hotter unless we eat the bugs and live in the pod. We also need a digital social credit system because white men are too egoistic to save the climate. And just to counter some fake news in advance: Oil and aerospace companies like BP, Exxon, Boeing or Lockheed Martin are absolutely innocent and have nothing to do with climate change. Stop blaming them for something exclusively caused by lower class white males eating meat, driving cars and having children.

[Anonymous No.15561504]

>>15561470
>Dyson was a member of the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation,
>In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" was created to do lobbying that a charity could not.
>Its director is Benny Peiser,[6] an expert on the social and economic aspects of physical exercise, and it is chaired by Terence Mordaunt, co-owner of the cargo handling business Bristol Port Company
I'm sure CO2 reductions are bad for his cargo company.

[Anonymous No.15561531]

>Be mainstream climate "scientist"
>Paid to say CO2 bad, Earth warming
>Funding dries up if you argue against the orthodoxy

>Be anti-global warming "scientist"
>Paid to say CO2 does nothing, Earth fine
>Funding dries up if you argue for the orthodoxy

Hmmmmm...

[Anonymous No.15561849]

>>15561003
This video was shared here by one of (you) basedboys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cimZGu5GadQ

[Anonymous No.15561875]

>>15561005

[Anonymous No.15561931]

>>15561488
>>15561504
Based

[Anonymous No.15561988]

>>15560998
>picrel who didn't graduate high school
I'm getting more and more convinced that the /pol/ bots are compulsive liars. Why do you have to lie about such mundane things? What's stopping you from lying about the big picture and stick to the truth in irrelevant details?

[Anonymous No.15562320]

>>15561494
lol

[Anonymous No.15562346]

>>15560829
>>15560939
>>15561003
jesus what a retard.
a physicist can understand geology since geology employ physics.

[Anonymous No.15562361]

>>15561875
Purely coincidentally most climatologists are dependent on the IPCC for funding to some degree or another

[Anonymous No.15562363]

>>15562361
who funds the IPCC?

[Anonymous No.15562919]

>>15562363
Rothschild family owned central banks fund it via the governments those banks control

[Anonymous No.15562936]

>>15562363
You do. Your taxes pay for them.

[Anonymous No.15562995]

>>15560998
Somebody needs to soijak this.

>soijak frowning
>bunch of world renown scientists and Nobel laureates saying "climate change is bogus"
>soijak excited
>Greta: "climate change is so heckin' valid!"

[Anonymous No.15563012]

>>15560827
john clauser is a complete fraud. he believes in le spooky quantum mechanics. that joke of a physicist is not to be taken seriously. completely undeserved nobel prize.

[Anonymous No.15563767]

>>15563012
>t. science denier

[Anonymous No.15564877]

>>15562995

[Anonymous No.15565322]

>all the highest IQ ppl say global warming is fake
>all the lowest IQ ppl say global warming is real
its almost like global warming is a just big IQ test

[Anonymous No.15565559]

>>15561470
>to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds.
They have done that, and there is evidence for global warming.

[Anonymous No.15565572]

>>15560827
>quantum physicist talking about climatology
Would you ask a climatologist about quantum physics?

[Anonymous No.15565576]

>>15565572
Atmospheric physics is the mathematically and scientifically rigorous version of climatology. It makes sense for an experienced physicist to comment on a division of his own discipline.

[Anonymous No.15565578]

>>15565576
There is scare overlap between quantum physics and atmospheric physics.
Again, would you ask an atmospheric physicist about quantum mechanics? Of course, you wouldn't.
This idea that quantum physicists, some of the least rigorous researchers in our era, are universally brilliant in all fields all the time, is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.15565582]

>>15565578
>Again, would you ask an atmospheric physicist about quantum mechanics?
They would have the necessary education to explain quite a lot of its basic principles, just like we find here with the OP's case.

[Anonymous No.15565605]

>>15561488
>Gee, I wonder why that guy would stick to a certain narrative that fossil fuels aren't bad.
Or he joined the organization because he realized climate alarmism is a massive grift

[Anonymous No.15565606]

>>15563012
>t. drooling retard

[Anonymous No.15565609]

>>15560827
Nobel laureates have some pretty retarded takes, even if their contributions are a paradigm shift.

See: Kary Mullis and AIDS denialism.

[Anonymous No.15565613]

Remember people, climate change will kill us all in 2023.

[Anonymous No.15565618]

>>15565609
Kary Mullis was right though.

[Anonymous No.15565625]

>>15565618
Yeah, I totally trust the guy who claims he saw an extraterrestrial that took the shape of a glowing raccoon.

Dude is a fucking nut job that just so happens to have a brilliant mind, like the guy who made Temple OS.

[Anonymous No.15565626]

>>15565582
>basic principles
What basic principles were revealed that every other far more informed expert didn't understand?
Would that atmospheric scientist have the capability to claim that current understandings of quarks are completely falsified and that quantum and particle physicists are all liars?

[Anonymous No.15565628]

>>15565626
>What basic principles were revealed that every other far more informed expert didn't understand?
It's hard to make someone understand something if his income is dependent on him not understanding it.

[Anonymous No.15565632]

>>15565628
Your lack of specificity is deafening.

[Anonymous No.15565636]

>>15565632
You're just not smart enough to understand aphorisms.

[Anonymous No.15565637]

>>15565636
All you have to do is point out the basic principle that almost every expert in the field of atmospheric physics and climatology has missed.
Quoting Upton Sinclair is only cute in high school.

[Anonymous No.15565641]

>>15565637
You're arguing from the purposefully naïve position that they're just ignorant of some brute fact that would change their mind if they knew it.

[Anonymous No.15565648]

>>15565641
It doesn't matter whether they know it and are hiding it or not.
Just point out the basic principles that they have missed or are ignoring.

[Anonymous No.15565656]

>>15565648
>conform to my sealioning
No, go fuck yourself. Stop sealioning.

[Anonymous No.15565662]

>>15565656
You made a claim that the above researcher understood the 'basic principles' of atmospheric physics enough to talk on par with the experts within that field. And said so confidently enough that ostensibly you had fact checked him.
Now, all I want to know is what he realized and what basic principles he understood that almost everyone else has missed.

Sealioning doesn't exist.
It is a fake pseudofallacy made up by geeks that can't back up their bullshit and who want avoid ever having to do so.

[Anonymous No.15565664]

>>15565662
>Now, all I want to know is what he realized and what basic principles he understood that almost everyone else has missed.
This is a false premise you made up to sealion. They aren't ignoring something, they're just liars.

[Anonymous No.15565669]

>>15565664
So what basic principles are they lying about?

[Anonymous No.15565673]

>>15565669
The temperature of the Earth.

[Anonymous No.15565682]

>>15565673
How do you know this, and how are they doing so?

[Anonymous No.15565683]

>>15565682

[Anonymous No.15565686]

>>15565683
So the data fits the model created, and this means that the data is bunk?
When an electrical engineer creates a model for current flow in a system, and the actual measurements fit that well, that is a sign of competency. When a climate scientist creates a model for temperature change, and the data fits that model, that is a sign of deception?

[Anonymous No.15565688]

>>15565686
>So the data fits the model created
The data is altered arbitrarily to force it to fit the model, rather than making the model fit the data.

[Anonymous No.15565691]

>>15565688
And how does that poster whose opinion you borrowed, know that it was altered?

[Anonymous No.15565692]

>>15565691
ESL?

[Anonymous No.15565704]

>>15565692
Answer the question.
They say that it has to be altered because the temperature data fits too closely to a modeled curve predicted by climate change theory.
How do they know that it was altered and that it just isn't the case that climate scientists are great at their jobs?

Further, Estimated data isn't the same as fabricated data.
What instead is the case is that data is smoothed when you have a weather anomaly or malfunction at the site.
The increase in number of sites and the increase in weather unpredictability on account of climate change naturally will lead to more 'estimated' values. Especially at it become more possible to track what is an anomaly and what isn't.

They're very open about what 'E' stands for
>E = original data available are available, but data were estimated using
> nearest neighbors because:
> (1) the data were between 3.5 and 5.0 standard deviations from their mean
> offset and 1 or more days in the month were missing, or
> (2) adjustments of original data were inappropriate (< 5 years between
> potential inhomogeneities) so nearest neighbors were used to estimate
> the data consistent with its 1994 location or most recent location
> with at least 5 years without potential station discontinuities.
This is from a data set from 1996 so this isn't some modern villainy, but a basic part of statistical data analysis for a complex system like climate tracking.

[Anonymous No.15565712]

>>15565572
quantum physicians are at least 20 points smarter than climatologist though.
>all sciences have the same difficulty
no

[Anonymous No.15565714]

>>15565704
>They say that it has to be altered because the temperature data fits too closely to a modeled curve predicted by climate change theory.
>How do they know that it was altered and that it just isn't the case that climate scientists are great at their jobs?
How did you get that from what I posted? That's literally the furthest thing possible from the truth.
The first graph is reported temperatures minus actual measured temperatures. NOAA reports adjusted and raw datasets separately. They do not contest that these adjustments are made, they just hide them from the public. Your entire argument is based on either a lie or a total misunderstanding of the issue, which makes every comment of yours instantly worthless.

[Anonymous No.15565715]

>>15565712
The same quantum physicists who keep making up particles and forces and then failing to find them? The same ones
No other field has such low rigor and standards of accuracy and still demands to be taken seriously as a field of study. Even damn psychologists are better.

[Anonymous No.15565721]

>>15565715
>No other field has such low rigor and standards of accuracy and still demands to be taken seriously as a field of study.
Climate science.

[Anonymous No.15565728]

>>15565721
Glib but vapid.
Climatologists report real data and have made accurate predictive models for decades.
Quantum physicists make up pie in the sky stories about how the basic mechanics of their field work and then when those fail to pan out, fabricate entirely new ones that take advantage of whatever other gaps in data exist. No other field does anything even close to that.
Pharmaceutical scientists will comfortably admit that certain medications and treatments are not fully understood in terms of their mechanics within the body, they don't create grand 'god of the gaps' tier narratives. They don't confuse something being falsifiable with something being scientifically rigorous.

Quantum physics relies on a veil of obscurantism and lack of need to actually release hard useful data to let its researchers act as bullshit artists.

[Anonymous No.15565730]

>>15565728
>Climatologists report real data
No they report fake data. >>15565683
>and have made accurate predictive models for decades.
They haven't made one single correct prediction in 60 years. After that long don't you think they should have been fired?
https://extinctionclock.org/

[Anonymous No.15565733]

>>15560827
all are fallible

[Anonymous No.15565739]

>>15560998
Appeal to authority?

[Anonymous No.15565741]

>>15565730
Why do you people always post shit that quotes utter randos?
I mean maybe I should kneel before the intelligence of King Charles nee Prince, and his deep knowledge of climate science. But more likely I will just listen to the experts, who are 'shockingly' rarely quoted in said website.

[Anonymous No.15565746]

>>15565741

[Anonymous No.15565754]

>>15565712
>at least 20 points smarter than climatologist
you have no idea how intellectually weak the climate science curriculum is. its way more that 20 points. climate science degrees don't even require calculus or thermoodyamics

[Anonymous No.15565756]

>>15565754
>climate science degrees don't even require calculus or thermoodyamics
How can you possibly be qualified to talk about the thermodynamic equilibrium of a system without even taking a single class on the subject?

[Anonymous No.15565769]

>>15565756
same way everyone on /sci/ became an overnight submarine expert once submarines were in the news, dunning–kruger effect

[Anonymous No.15565771]

>>15565714
Thats obvious.
But what you're ending up with after adjustment is a chart that shows the steady growth of temp.
That is because that is what is happening.

Now, as for why those adjustments are happening, there are many reasons.
For example, the measuring devices being used today have 'cooling biases' that need to be corrected for on account of how they work
>http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/a-cooling-bias-due-to-mmts/
As well, we have more holistic data today than in the past, where today we have constant temp measurements throughout the day, in the past only daily peaks were really documented in depth, naturally leading to a depression of current averages.
As well, a preference for earlier times of measurement in recent years, compared to afternoon measurements, has resulted in temp depression. This related to the above point.
We're better at placing stations in rural areas today than we were in the past. With a consistent effort to move stations out of 'heat islands' into less developed areas being made. This will see a temp depression in some places and a temp rise in others.
Finally, when we develop more accurate methods of measuring temp, we can compare them to old data collection methods, and then adjust everything relative to our current abilities. Classic temp measurement methods were more likely to bias towards too hot, than too cool.

There has never been effort to hide 'unadjusted data' from the public. If there was, why would they ever even release it?
3rd party studies have also backed up said adjustments.
>https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/crn2016/CRN%20Paper%20Revised.pdf
>By comparing nearby pairs of USHCN and USCRN stations, we find that adjustments make both trends and monthly anomalies from USHCN stations much more similar to those of neighboring USCRN stations for the period from 2004-2015 when the networks overlap. These results improve our confidence in the reliability of homogenized surface temperature records.

[Anonymous No.15565772]

>>15560998
she just needs your help!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mptNDINqYnQ

[Anonymous No.15565773]

>>15565746
So how is that related to quoting doddering inbred royals as having anything of value to say about climate science?

[Anonymous No.15565775]

>>15565714
>>15565771
Here is another way in which you show a clear ignorance of the situation at hand.
Here is a graph where they actually adjust the historical temperature *upwards*. Demonstrating that there was less heating than measurements indicated.

[Anonymous No.15565776]

>>15565775
>degrees C anomaly
>not absolute temperature
>claims 1930s were colder than 1970s
Wow now THIS is some amazing fraud.

[Anonymous No.15565778]

>>15565769
Very true. It seems that a lot of people here have developed Dunning-Kruger related to climate science, which leads to people claiming that obviously fake data is proof that it's hotter now than during the Dustbowl. I'm surprised people even fall for it, but I guess if people lick their balls and tell them they're smart little boys they'll happily spread FUD for free.

[Anonymous No.15565786]

>>15560829
>get involved!
>no not like that, leave it to the experts

[Anonymous No.15565792]

>>15560829
I would trust a geochemist more than a modern psychology "expert." At least his field has rigor.

[Anonymous No.15566236]

>>15560827
That's funny OP because it's hot as hell outside and last week was the warmest ever since we've began measuring temperatures in the 19th century

[Anonymous No.15566245]

>>15565754
>>15565756
>>15565769
Why do you believe this bullshit?

[Anonymous No.15566249]

>>15565775
/pol/tards will conveniently ignore this.

[Anonymous No.15566260]

>>15560827

There is also the issue of the fundamental misapprehension regarding "civilization" and its "collapse". "Civilization" is contingent on, coextensive with, even coincidental with nothing but "collapse". The supposed harm done, to both "the planet" and ourselves, is of the same kind as the harm that was done by agriculture and metallurgy, and by every aspect of civilization itself. If, at any point, civilization were to stop collapsing, if it were to pay the debt and "adapt", that alone would be its end.

[Anonymous No.15566869]

>>15566249
>>15566249
all temperature measurements from before 1930 are fake and those afterwards are very suspect. I dont think anyone can measure average temperatures today, though i would accept a compendium of current temperatures (never trusting it has not been faked or improperly gathered)

[Anonymous No.15567004]

>>15560829
Couldn't hack being a physicist, huh? Don't worry anon, it's a tough field.

[Anonymous No.15567007]

>>15567004
Physicist here. While I’m not a climatologist, any physicist who thinks he knows the climate better than climatologist is full of shit. Obvious exceptions like physicists working on atmospheric physics for their entire lives aside, of course. But if a particle physicist makes claims about atmospheric physics that the actual experts in the field disagree with, it’s quite clear who’s wrong.

[Anonymous No.15567012]

>>15565572
I wouldn't ask a climatologist about climatology.

[Anonymous No.15567014]

>>15567012
We know that you’re interested in outrage, not in learning.

[Anonymous No.15567018]

>>15567007
That's not true at all, they could easily have devoted as much time to studying texts and the climate literature as any climate scientist. You are just making an appeal to authority argument here.

[Anonymous No.15567021]

>>15567014
What is this "we" shit? I am not outraged about anything, climatologists are just by and large incompetent.

[Anonymous No.15567023]

>>15561007
He's not an expert though. Unless you can post any work done by him in the field of climate science?

[Anonymous No.15567027]

>>15567023
Climate science is a subfield of physics.

[Anonymous No.15567037]

>>15567027
And? He didn't publish anything on climate science and since he has an opinion on it, him not publishing any related work shows me that he isn't an expert on it.
Genetics is a subset of biology but I wouldn't trust any random biologist without background in genetics with opinions on genetic engineering and gene therapy.

[Anonymous No.15567058]

>>15567027
So is plasma physics and I don’t know shit about plasma. I know enough to maybe nurture the interest of a high schooler, but not enough to have any educated opinion on particular questions in plasma physics, open or not.

[Anonymous No.15567121]

>>15567058
All that tells me is that you're lazy and stupid.

[Anonymous No.15567137]

>>15567037
You do not know the extent of his knowledge and it is disingenuous to pretend that you do, having published works in a field is not a prerequisite to becoming an expert in that field.

[Anonymous No.15567140]

>>15567121
Not getting into arguments about plasma physics with plasma physicists is lazy?

[Anonymous No.15567145]

>>15567140
Not expanding your knowledge into other areas of your discipline is lazy or indicates that you're too stupid to broaden your horizons.

[Anonymous No.15567158]

>>15560880
As someone with a degree in Earth science this is a lie. Physics, including convection is a requirement to get an Earth science degree and even to take many classes.

But of course you don't care. You're just looking for excuses.

[Anonymous No.15567165]

>>15567158
>as someone with [different degree]
>my degree had different requirements
Wow no shit huh?

[Anonymous No.15567168]

>>15567165
His claim is that basic physics isn't taught in Earth science. Something that is demonstrably false. Earth science is a broad category including geology, geophysics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, glaciology and many more. Physics is a basic requirement of all Earth science degrees.

[Anonymous No.15567173]

>>15567168
That's a very bold claim. Do you have the curriculum of every climatology degree program on hand to back that up?

[Anonymous No.15567194]

>>15567173
You don't even look it up yourself before making such a stupid claim. Real intelligent of you.

Here is the Climatology degree requirements in the completely leftist liberal state of Texas

https://catalog.utexas.edu/undergraduate/liberal-arts/degrees-and-programs/bs-environmental-science/
Physics is clearly required.

Here is the Climatology degree requirements in the completely leftist liberal state of Utah

https://atmos.utah.edu/undergraduate/academics/degrees/degree-requirements.php
Physics is clearly required.

You're the one making the claim that physics is not required for studying climate. It's now on you to find me a single climatology program anywhere that doesn't require physics.

[Anonymous No.15567196]

>>15567194
>in the completely leftist liberal
Poltroon brainworms detected.

[Anonymous No.15567198]

>>15567145
But that's not what we are taking about. We are not talking about physicists and chemists wanting to learn from climatologists. We're talking about know-it-alls who think they know more than the actual experts and start arguments with them. I'll happily learn from a plasma physicist. I'll ask questions to understand certain things better. But I won't debate him on plasma physics. That would be utterly pointless and embarrassing for me.

[Anonymous No.15567202]

>>15567196
Sorry. I forgot I was communicating with soemone so dumb.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

[Anonymous No.15567206]

>>15567202
As I said, terminal poltroon brainworms.

[Anonymous No.15567213]

>>15567198
>We're talking about know-it-alls who think they know more than the actual experts
He knows at least roughly as much as they do, which is enough to become aware of the fact that the discipline is bunk.

[Anonymous No.15567220]

>>15567213
>He knows at least roughly as much as they do,
I think I have a pretty good but rough understanding of what a plasma is and I know roughly which forces act on a plasma. Never ever would I dare make a statement like "your discipline is bunk". That would say much more about me than about their discipline.

[Anonymous No.15567224]

>>15567220
There are likely many disciplines you would make that statement about, however. Flat Earth "science" for example.

[Anonymous No.15567233]

>>15567224
>grasping for straws to defend the indefensible

[Anonymous No.15567239]

>>15567233
>desperately deflecting

[Anonymous No.15567334]

>>15567213
No he doesn't. Specialization is required in all fields. This is why you don't go see a podiatrist to tell you what's wrong with your heart. The fact that he's a physicist tells me nothing about his knowledge of climate. Clearly he knows very little because he's arguing with actual experts in the field.

[Anonymous No.15567336]

>>15567334
>Clearly he knows very little because he's
...saying something that hurts your feelings.
But thankfully for the rest of us his analysis is 100% correct so your opinion doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.15568107]

>>15567336
He's repeating debunked claims. If a geologist told everyone that cern would make black holes, he'd be a fool and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.15568121]

>>15567137
No, but it is an indicator of it. You're just assuming he is an expert with no evidence.

[Anonymous No.15568137]

>>15568121
OP calls him a Nobel physicist instead of a Nobel laureate. Do you think that these people understand anything? They're probably some paid Nigerian shills, not scientists or people who understand the difference between a physicist and climatologist. Or people who know what a Nobel laureate is.

[Anonymous No.15568205]

>>15568121
Publishing through peer review in a government-captured field like climate science is proof against higher intellect.

[Anonymous No.15568345]

>>15560827
Global warming is clearly a hoax, good to know that some of the Nobel laureate crowd are finally getting onto my level intellectually

[Anonymous No.15568351]

>>15568345
>the guy is like 100 and probably developing dementia
>good to know that some of the Nobel laureate crowd are finally getting onto my level intellectually

[Anonymous No.15568623]

>>15560847
We should leave that to the actors and politicians like god intended.

[Anonymous No.15568633]

>>15560891
He look everyone, the moment anyone provides criticism of "climate change" someone comes in to redefine it as something else.
>It's not really climate science, it's really just predictions. It's really just a way to have a (((conversation))).

[Anonymous No.15568635]

>>15562346
Not how it works at all.

[Anonymous No.15569243]

>>15568205
You can publish even without the peer-review. Plenty of journals let you publish before the peer-review process. You can even publish on researchgate or something.
Did he do any of that? Saying that the research is too controversial to pass the peer-review process is a cop out at best. And don't tell me his career is on the line. It's his publicly held opinion.

[Anonymous No.15569284]

>>15569243

[Anonymous No.15569313]

>>15569284
>strap infant into torture apparatus
>perform cruel procedure on infant
>damage infant's brain
Why won't no one publish my research?
t. Mengele et al.

[Anonymous No.15569325]

>>15569284
>implying this is even remotely comparable
John Clauser is not circumcising children in a privately funded organisation in his spare time. He's talking about climate crisis and dresses his statements with "I think", "I believe", "In my opinion". It's his publicly held opinion. The fact that he presented none of his work and specified it is his opinion tells you that he isn't an expert and most likely doesn't consider himself to be one.
I don't understand what the argument even is about. That educated people aren't allowed to have casual opinions without a large body of evidence and that any statement such a person makes must be inherently true?

[Anonymous No.15569584]

>>15560829
Global warming is based on physics
There's another stuff that i won't mention because it's too long and weird but yeah it's thermoD stuff

[Anonymous No.15570191]

>>15569584
>Global warming is based on physics
Its not based on anything scientific, its based on lies. Physics debunks the global warming lie completely. Ignorance of physics is required for belief in global warming

[Anonymous No.15570326]

>>15570191
This. If global warming was really happening they could prove it with data. Instead they just lie and use social pressure to enforce it.

[Anonymous No.15570345]

>CO2 Coalition
I wonder if they’re the same people flooding this board with dozens of denier shill threads

[Anonymous No.15570350]

>>15570345
People just like upsetting propagandized normies like you and counteracting the WEF shills. 4chan's culture has always been that way.

[Anonymous No.15570406]

>>15570326
If global warming was really happening then people would notice it happening, it would be readily apparent.
people notice the other things that are changing, but the weather is the same now as it was 50 years ago

[Anonymous No.15570419]

>>15565609
>kary mullis
Correct.
>luc montangier
Correct, his actual Nobel-winning research was awarded specifically because it upheld a false narrative.
>linus pauling
Correct.
>william shockley
Correct.
>james watson
Correct.
Every "crazy" genius is correct and maligned for contradicting dogma.

[Anonymous No.15570762]

>>15570419
kary mullis was murdered on the eve of the covid hoax so that fake pcr tests could be used without the famous inventor of the process debunking them

[Anonymous No.15570833]

>>15569313
>strap infant into torture apparatus
>perform cruel procedure on infant
>damage infant's brain
Great job, you just described a circumcision.

[Anonymous No.15570855]

>>15565609
My leg hurt, and I decided to go to doctor. He takes an x-ray and stares at it for a while. Then he asks me the following question, which I found very weird at the time.
>Sir, do you ride a motorcycle?
No, I say, just a car.
>Good news, that means your leg isn't broken.
Needless to say, I left the hospital slightly confused.