Author Topic: "Nobel Prize Winning Scientist Gets ‘Canceled’ For What He Just Said About Clima  (Read 3907 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
https://www.americainsider.org/2023/07/30/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-gets-canceled-for-what-he-just-said-about-climate-change/

ByDavid RuffulPublished 13 hours ago 7/30/2023

Esteemed physicist Dr. John Clauser, who holds multiple degrees from the California Institute of Technology and Columbia University, won Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022.
As a scientific expert, Clauser does not believe there is a man-made global warming crisis. This doesn’t sit well with left-wing climate activists.

“I don’t believe there is a climate crisis,” Clauser explained. “The world we live in today is filled with misinformation. It is up to each of you to serve as judges, distinguishing truth from falsehood based on accurate observations of phenomena.”

“In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis,” Dr. Clauser continued. “There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

Those who deny global warming often face extreme ridicule and are subject to censorship and “cancelation.” In 2022, a peer-reviewed study from climate experts was published showing several unsubstantiated claims about “apocalyptic” climate change appearing in the mainstream media.

After speaking out against this manufactured crisis, Dr. Clauser was denied his previously-approved speaking engagement at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
In a statement, the Co2 Coalition said, “Nobel Laureate (Physics 2022) Dr. John Clauser was to present a seminar on climate models to the IMF on Thursday and now his talk has been summarily cancelled.”

“According to an email he received last evening, the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office of the International Monetary Fund, Pablo Moreno, had read the flyer for John’s July 25 zoom talk and summarily and immediately canceled the talk. Technically, it was ‘postponed,’” the statement added.

It is widely believed that Dr. Clauser’s speech was canceled as a result of his dissenting view on man-made climate change.

Dr. Clauser isn’t the only high-profile scientist who disagrees with global warming. Meteorologist John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, agrees that there is “no significant man-made global warming.”

Appearing on CNN, Coleman said, “Climate change is not happening, there is no significant man-made global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the past and there is no reason to expect any in the future.”
When then-CNN host Brian Stelter called Coleman a “climate change denier,” Coleman responded, “I resent you calling me a denier. That is a word meant to put me down. I’m a skeptic about climate change.”

“Climate change is not happening. There is no significant manmade global warming now, there hasn’t been any int he past, and there’s no reason to expect any in the future. There’s a whole lot of baloney,” he continued.

Agree Agree x 3 View List

Offline TrumpWon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Be nice if he would go on to explain the unprecedented rise in the greenhouse gas CO2.
That would definitely get him his second Nobel!

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
Be nice if he would go on to explain the unprecedented rise in the greenhouse gas CO2.
That would definitely get him his second Nobel!
Well I do believe he knows a lot more about such things than you do, plus, carbon dioxide has NEVER, EVER been proven to be a greenhouse gas, that is only the theory they use to scam the general public and get a lot of money from taxpayers, courtesy of the government god wannabes.

He now knows what happens when one sticks to science and one does not kiss arses of the consensus, although there was an article in the Scientific American 35 or so years ago stating, with examples what happens to science community when they science facts that disagree with the consensus of the supposed leaders of the science community.
They find a different line of work as they are/were never allowed back among those  "science members"  they dared to say were wrong. especially when they were proven, later on, to be correct.

I doubt very much the Scientific American would dare to print such an article today. :(

If you read recent science headlines, they have supposedly , recently, discovered Greenland was once ice free, and there were no cars around for being blamed :-*.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline TrumpWon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 968

Offline Dixie-Dude

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 977
  • Gender: Male
So, plant more trees.  Trees are the number one source to pull CO2 out of the air.  Build more nuclear power plants to replace coal.  Wind can't supply to entire world due to lack of transmission lines.  Neither can solar without expensive batteries for night and cloudy days.  Good to have alternatives, but nukes can run 24/7 regardless of weather. 

We still have to have oil for lubricants, synthetics, and plastics, as well as coal, also medicines.  We have trillions of dollars of infrastructure pipelines for natural gas, which can handle up to 20% hydrogen gas, or even be eventually replaced by hydrogen gas.  Why outlaw gas appliances and switch to electric when to do so will put a tremendous strain on the power infrastructure.  Why go whole hog on electric cars when hybrids are a good compromise, at least for the next 20 years.  Transition to new energy sources will happen when older ones either run out or become too expensive. 

Homes could be built semi-underground to drastically cut heat and air conditioning bills, electric and natural gas use.  Lots of little things can be done over time to reduce energy demands.  Not forcing change, when it might not even be necessary. 
Opelika Portal

Offline TrumpWon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 968

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
CO2 has been a known greenhouse gas for 164 years. You’ve had plenty of time to refute it.

https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/hof/HofJul21.html#:~:text=In%201896%2C%20Svante%20Arrhenius%2C%20a,will%20eventually%20warm%20the%20planet.
Greenhouse effect, that is known.

THER is ZERO proof of anything other than water vapor being a provable part of it -- try again or give me a link to  science that has PROVEN via scientific method carbon  is part of it.
PROVEN, not theory.
I am assuming you know how a proof is accomplished via a scientific method.

Online Mule 11

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5079
CO2 has been a known greenhouse gas for 164 years. You’ve had plenty of time to refute it.

https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/hof/HofJul21.html#:~:text=In%201896%2C%20Svante%20Arrhenius%2C%20a,will%20eventually%20warm%20the%20planet.

Help the climate and quit breathing... charles scwab and bill gates along with me will appreciate your contribution to the population reduction :)
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline TrumpWon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Bob,
Thanks for the lively response! Before I suggest some experiments you can conduct to see if CO2 does or does not act as a greenhouse Gas I'd like to clarify some terminology. Let's agree to use the scientific definitions.

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in a scientific context it most often refers to an explanation that has already been tested and is widely accepted as valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Definitions_from_scientific_organizations

There is no “PROVEN” in science. A theory never becomes a fact. In science we do not have facts or proof, all we have is the best-available, most widely accepted theory at the time. Is gravity a PROVEN or fact? No, it’s a theory.

For any theory to be accepted within most academia there is usually one simple criterion. The essential criterion is that the theory must be observable and repeatable.

The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria, then the explanation becomes a theory. Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena. It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#:~:text=Scientific%20theories%20are%20testable%20and,%2C%20chemistry%2C%20and%20astronomy).

Buckle up Bob, here comes the good stuff!

CO2 is a green house gas. For 164 years this theory has withstood the test of the scientific method. Here is a description of the experiments conducted in 1856 which you can easily replicate.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/202307/history.cfm

I'm excited to hear how your hypotheses and experiments work out!

I’m confident that you’ll prove to yourself that CO2 is a green house gas. Then we can go on to the next piece of the puzzle- Where is all this CO2 coming from? (hint- what are the byproducts of combustion :) )

GOOD LUCK! I'm excited!

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Bob,
Thanks for the lively response! Before I suggest some experiments you can conduct to see if CO2 does or does not act as a greenhouse Gas I'd like to clarify some terminology. Let's agree to use the scientific definitions.

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in a scientific context it most often refers to an explanation that has already been tested and is widely accepted as valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Definitions_from_scientific_organizations

There is no “PROVEN” in science. A theory never becomes a fact. In science we do not have facts or proof, all we have is the best-available, most widely accepted theory at the time. Is gravity a PROVEN or fact? No, it’s a theory.

For any theory to be accepted within most academia there is usually one simple criterion. The essential criterion is that the theory must be observable and repeatable.

The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria, then the explanation becomes a theory. Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena. It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#:~:text=Scientific%20theories%20are%20testable%20and,%2C%20chemistry%2C%20and%20astronomy).

Buckle up Bob, here comes the good stuff!

CO2 is a green house gas. For 164 years this theory has withstood the test of the scientific method. Here is a description of the experiments conducted in 1856 which you can easily replicate.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/202307/history.cfm

I'm excited to hear how your hypotheses and experiments work out!

I’m confident that you’ll prove to yourself that CO2 is a green house gas. Then we can go on to the next piece of the puzzle- Where is all this CO2 coming from? (hint- what are the byproducts of combustion :) )

GOOD LUCK! I'm excited!


Your so full of excrement. Don't forget volcanoes, forest fires, BBQ grills, wood burning stoves, camp fires, grass fires, coal oil lamps, gas burning appliances, and the dreaded "scented candle". ::)

Climate change people, are stupid people. As is our resident emasculated TROLL. ;)
You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett

Offline TrumpWon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Hold on real man cowboy, you’re getting ahead of this discussion! Kindly give Bobby and me a chance to resolve the CO2 as a greenhouse gas issue before we proceed to sources.
(Now I know how you feel when topics dear to you start going astray)

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Hold on real man cowboy, you’re getting ahead of this discussion! Kindly give Bobby and me a chance to resolve the CO2 as a greenhouse gas issue before we proceed to sources.
(Now I know how you feel when topics dear to you start going astray)

Why don't you kick off the discussion of what the term "greenhouse gas" precisely is, regarding earth's atmospheric temperature Kenny.
You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett


Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett

Offline TrumpWon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Doesn’t matter who’s saying it. Discredit the science not the messenger. Think scientific method!
It’s not how you think it is …………..

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Doesn’t matter who’s saying it. Discredit the science not the messenger. Think scientific method!
It’s not how you think it is …………..

So Kenny, your incapable of explaining it, your one of those sheepal followers.  8)
You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/202307/history.cfm

I'm excited to hear how your hypotheses and experiments work out!

I’m confident that you’ll prove to yourself that CO2 is a green house gas. Then we can go on to the next piece of the puzzle- Where is all this CO2 coming from? (hint- what are the byproducts of combustion :) )

GOOD LUCK! I'm excited!
WHERE are the repeats pf this so called scientific exp., not one an done opinons .
All this is , is opinions of by golly this want done once and in the OPINION of the doer justificed the doers opinion.
Scientific method means the test can be done and repeated endlessly with the same result, always.
This is just more theory, kind of like the canals on Mars.

They do not exist or they would be reffered to ALWAYS by greenhouse profiteers.
Oh yes the article is really about how she was dissed by other scientiests, not that her test actually proved any thing.

Modern experts do agree, however, that Foote’s experiment only measured warming from visible radiation and not infrared radiation, which we now know emanates from Earth to cause the greenhouse effect. Tyndall’s more state-of-the-art experiments did.

Offline TrumpWon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 968

Offline TrumpWon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Prove it to yourself. Here’s a video of an actual experiment that you can do

https://youtu.be/EKrpa3eLBgQ

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Here’s the report on an actual experiment

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075
Prove it to yourself. Here’s a video of an actual experiment that you can do

https://youtu.be/EKrpa3eLBgQ

All wacky wingnut conspiracy theories that ignore historical records, trying to scare Americans into submission. An excuse to suppress, supported, and promoted by complete fools.

Exemplified here by our resident fool/TROLL
You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett

Offline TrumpWon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Still waiting for some science Pops.

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Still waiting for some science Pops.

Still waiting for you to comprehend reality Kenny. A lab experiment does not a climate change duplicate.
You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett

Online Bob Riebe

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7461
Here’s the report on an actual experiment

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075
A closed system experiment, should be able to be performed repeatedly without any change, but as the one commentor said, the Earth is not a closed system it is an open system and there is/has been no experiment that even remotely duplicates that.

The Commentors rip the BS experiment a new arse hole which it needs as it is BS.

Offline gypsyman

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4850
Climate change is real! Been happening for 10's of thousands of years. Glaciers came and receded forming the Great Lakes! (I live 1.5 miles from Lake Erie, greatest walleye fishing anywhere) Village's on Greenland have been found since the ice melted, which means a thousand+ years ago, there was no ice. Thames river in England froze over in the 1850's, portraits of people ice skating on it. Do a little history check, old news. Just another way for Al Gore to make money, and Greta Thunberg to think she's special!
We keep trying peace, it usually doesn't work!!Remember(12/7/41)(9/11/01) gypsyman

Offline TrumpWon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Look how they’re brainwashing our kids with this CO2 experiment!

https://edu.rsc.org/experiments/modelling-the-greenhouse-effect/1543.article#:~:text=The%20experiments%20in%20both%20parts,will%20take%20about%2030%20minutes.

164 years with the same results, how do they do it?????

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18253
and the big one! people exhaling! some like trump one even do it talking out o two holes
Bob,
Thanks for the lively response! Before I suggest some experiments you can conduct to see if CO2 does or does not act as a greenhouse Gas I'd like to clarify some terminology. Let's agree to use the scientific definitions.

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in a scientific context it most often refers to an explanation that has already been tested and is widely accepted as valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Definitions_from_scientific_organizations

There is no “PROVEN” in science. A theory never becomes a fact. In science we do not have facts or proof, all we have is the best-available, most widely accepted theory at the time. Is gravity a PROVEN or fact? No, it’s a theory.

For any theory to be accepted within most academia there is usually one simple criterion. The essential criterion is that the theory must be observable and repeatable.

The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria, then the explanation becomes a theory. Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena. It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have resisted attempts at falsification. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#:~:text=Scientific%20theories%20are%20testable%20and,%2C%20chemistry%2C%20and%20astronomy).

Buckle up Bob, here comes the good stuff!

CO2 is a green house gas. For 164 years this theory has withstood the test of the scientific method. Here is a description of the experiments conducted in 1856 which you can easily replicate.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/202307/history.cfm

I'm excited to hear how your hypotheses and experiments work out!

I’m confident that you’ll prove to yourself that CO2 is a green house gas. Then we can go on to the next piece of the puzzle- Where is all this CO2 coming from? (hint- what are the byproducts of combustion :) )

GOOD LUCK! I'm excited!


Your so full of excrement. Don't forget volcanoes, forest fires, BBQ grills, wood burning stoves, camp fires, grass fires, coal oil lamps, gas burning appliances, and the dreaded "scented candle". ::)

Climate change people, are stupid people. As is our resident emasculated TROLL. ;)
blue lives matter

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18253
yup without climate change we probably wouldnt be here today
Climate change is real! Been happening for 10's of thousands of years. Glaciers came and receded forming the Great Lakes! (I live 1.5 miles from Lake Erie, greatest walleye fishing anywhere) Village's on Greenland have been found since the ice melted, which means a thousand+ years ago, there was no ice. Thames river in England froze over in the 1850's, portraits of people ice skating on it. Do a little history check, old news. Just another way for Al Gore to make money, and Greta Thunberg to think she's special!
blue lives matter

Offline Lloyd Smale

  • Moderators
  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18253
you should change your forum name to Fauciknowsall. well i guess even he knows a hell of alot more then you. do tell us all your credentials. my guess is dee or anyone else here including you has ZERO. but then all of them have a bit more common sense and can think for themselves. you just saw a post from a REAL scientist and like the rest of you socialists you dismiss it because it doesnt follow your part line and doesnt take billions of our tax dollars for a farse that just makes the powerful more so. The motto for the new democratic movement should be "NOTHING TO SEE HERE" Ill give you a couple more things you can resolve for your party. how is it that killing a fetus that has every body part you do and even unlike you has a working brain isnt murder!! or try to explain to me the sanity in allowing a teenager or in some cases even younger to pursue a sex change and even applauded by teachers for doing it WITHOUT there parents permission or even knowledge. thats some sick crap right there. resolve that bs. but first show us your nobel prize credentials. now who to believe a man with a doctorate and a nobel prize or a little girl thats afraid to even tell us what she or heshe does for a living!! no brainer if ever there was one
Hold on real man cowboy, you’re getting ahead of this discussion! Kindly give Bobby and me a chance to resolve the CO2 as a greenhouse gas issue before we proceed to sources.
(Now I know how you feel when topics dear to you start going astray)
blue lives matter

Offline TrumpWon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Still can’t comprehend that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Follow this experiment which you can even conduct at home!

https://www.steampoweredfamily.com/the-greenhouse-effect-experiment/

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23870
  • Gender: Male
Still can’t comprehend that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Follow this experiment which you can even conduct at home!

https://www.steampoweredfamily.com/the-greenhouse-effect-experiment/

You still can't define how a "greenhouse gas"  affects an entire planet, giving "provable examples".
As with every other TROLL, you are totally reliant on pre-prepared propaganda (by someone else) that is totally theoretical.

You may all go to hell, I will go to Texas. Davy Crockett
Agree Agree x 1 View List