I certainly agree with those commentators who say that ALL scientists should have their say. (Assuming they're not being bribed, of course.) Sweeping facts - or evidence - under the rug won't make them go away.

However, I'd love to know what he would advise us to DO to prevent future famines, wars, etc, even if there's nothing we can do to slow down natural disasters. Also, even if it turns out that ALL the planets are getting warmer and human behavior is just a relatively small factor on our planet, why aggravate the problems the way we've been doing?

(The fact that so many refuse to change their behavior reminds me of what someone said about the youthful hedonism and materialism of the 1950s; the writer said that that culture was the result of living in the shadow of the Bomb. Parents didn't want their kids to be fearful and miserable, after all - and adults wanted to have all the fun they could before WWIII broke out.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-gets-canceled-for-what-he-just-said-about-climate-change/ar-AA1eyC3S

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:25:22 AM UTC+10, Lenona wrote:
> I certainly agree with those commentators who say that ALL scientists should have their say. (Assuming they're not being bribed, of course.) Sweeping facts - or evidence - under the rug won't make them go away.
>
All scientists don't have expertise. in the area, Clauser has never published anything in atmospheric physics, climate modeling etc.
They claim John Coleman as an expert, he was a weatherman who's only degree was in journalism. He died in 2018.

As far as "Cancellation" goes, a single presentation gets delayed (apparently because the people at the International Monetary Fund looked at what he was planning on talking about and realised it wasn't in their wheelhouse and not something they'd understand) and that's a massive news item

> However, I'd love to know what he would advise us to DO to prevent future famines, wars, etc, even if there's nothing we can do to slow down natural disasters. Also, even if it turns out that ALL the planets are getting warmer and human behavior is just a relatively small factor on our planet, why aggravate the problems the way we've been doing?
>

There's not, other planets aren't showing anything like the changes in climate Earth is
There's no observed increase in the sun's output, earth's orbit, axial tilt or any other factor that fits the observed behaviour, however it fits the predicted effect of increased greenhouse gasses very well

> (The fact that so many refuse to change their behavior reminds me of what someone said about the youthful hedonism and materialism of the 1950s; the writer said that that culture was the result of living in the shadow of the Bomb. Parents didn't want their kids to be fearful and miserable, after all - and adults wanted to have all the fun they could before WWIII broke out.)
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-gets-canceled-for-what-he-just-said-about-climate-change/ar-AA1eyC3S

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:33:05 PM UTC-4, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:25:22 AM UTC+10, Lenona wrote:

> > Also, even if it turns out that ALL the planets are getting warmer and human behavior is just a relatively small factor on our planet, why aggravate the problems the way we've been doing?
> >

> There's not, other planets aren't showing anything like the changes in climate Earth is
> There's no observed increase in the sun's output, earth's orbit, axial tilt or any other factor that fits the observed behaviour, however it fits the predicted effect of increased greenhouse gasses very well

I should have known. If there were proof that all the planets were getting warmer, we'd be hearing that from Fox News, at least, every week. (I only heard it once, from a non-scientist.)

We'd also be hearing it regularly from The Former Guy, who, I just heard, would win in a landslide if the election were held today...groan.

In article <a2adab1b-881c-407d-8811-0479c2c8ca34n@googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:33:05 PM UTC-4, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:25:22 AM UTC+10, Lenona wrote:
>
>> > Also, even if it turns out that ALL the planets are getting warmer
>and human behavior is just a relatively small factor on our planet, why
>aggravate the problems the way we've been doing?
>> >
>
>> There's not, other planets aren't showing anything like the changes
>in climate Earth is
>> There's no observed increase in the sun's output, earth's orbit,
>axial tilt or any other factor that fits the observed behaviour,
>however it fits the predicted effect of increased greenhouse gasses
>very well
>
>I should have known. If there were proof that all the planets were
>getting warmer, we'd be hearing that from Fox News, at least, every
>week. (I only heard it once, from a non-scientist.)

As I recall, it was a popular climate crank talking point about ten
or fifteen years ago when Mars had a brief warming period.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:25:22 PM UTC-4, Lenona wrote:
> I certainly agree with those commentators who say that ALL scientists should have their say. (Assuming they're not being bribed, of course.) Sweeping facts - or evidence - under the rug won't make them go away.
>
> However, I'd love to know what he would advise us to DO to prevent future famines, wars, etc, even if there's nothing we can do to slow down natural disasters. Also, even if it turns out that ALL the planets are getting warmer and human behavior is just a relatively small factor on our planet, why aggravate the problems the way we've been doing?
>
> (The fact that so many refuse to change their behavior reminds me of what someone said about the youthful hedonism and materialism of the 1950s; the writer said that that culture was the result of living in the shadow of the Bomb. Parents didn't want their kids to be fearful and miserable, after all - and adults wanted to have all the fun they could before WWIII broke out.)
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-gets-canceled-for-what-he-just-said-about-climate-change/ar-AA1eyC3S

One wonders why, as a person with no expertise in climate models, he was asked to lecture on them to an inexpert audience which
would be unable to evaluate his remarks.

He has not been cancelled. There are many scientific conferences to which he could submit an abstract, for example the American Geophysical
Union conference in December. His abstract will be accepted and he will be granted a chance to be heard, as others of his type have
been before.

Of course, presentations in such a forum are subject to questions. It is not the done thing to get cranky when people find flaws in your work.

I've seen elsewhere that he claims that the cloud models in current climate programs are all wrong. Well, let him describe his critique
this December. Even better, let him write a paper showing how to make better cloud models. That would be doing science.

I predict he will do neither.

That would be self-cancelling.

William Hyde

William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> writes:
>On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:25:22=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4, Lenona wrote:
>> I certainly agree with those commentators who say that ALL scientists sho=
>uld have their say. (Assuming they're not being bribed, of course.) Sweepin=
>g facts - or evidence - under the rug won't make them go away.=20
>>=20
>> However, I'd love to know what he would advise us to DO to prevent future=
> famines, wars, etc, even if there's nothing we can do to slow down natural=
> disasters. Also, even if it turns out that ALL the planets are getting war=
>mer and human behavior is just a relatively small factor on our planet, why=
> aggravate the problems the way we've been doing?=20
>>=20
>> (The fact that so many refuse to change their behavior reminds me of what=
> someone said about the youthful hedonism and materialism of the 1950s; the=
> writer said that that culture was the result of living in the shadow of th=
>e Bomb. Parents didn't want their kids to be fearful and miserable, after a=
>ll - and adults wanted to have all the fun they could before WWIII broke ou=
>t.)=20
>>=20
>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-gets-c=
>anceled-for-what-he-just-said-about-climate-change/ar-AA1eyC3S
>
>One wonders why, as a person with no expertise in climate models, he was as=
>ked to lecture on them to an inexpert audience which
>would be unable to evaluate his remarks.
>
>He has not been cancelled. There are many scientific conferences to which=
> he could submit an abstract, for example the American Geophysical
>Union conference in December. His abstract will be accepted and he will be=
> granted a chance to be heard, as others of his type have
>been before.
>
>Of course, presentations in such a forum are subject to questions. It is=
> not the done thing to get cranky when people find flaws in your work.
>
>I've seen elsewhere that he claims that the cloud models in current climate=
> programs are all wrong. Well, let him describe his critique
>this December. Even better, let him write a paper showing how to make bett=
>er cloud models. That would be doing science.
>
>I predict he will do neither.

It seems odd that an 80 year old quantum physicist would
suddenly become expert in a completely different field right
after joining a climate change denial organization cleverly
named the CO2 COALition.

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 5:51:21 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 2:25:22=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4, Lenona wrote:
> >> I certainly agree with those commentators who say that ALL scientists sho=
> >uld have their say. (Assuming they're not being bribed, of course.) Sweepin=
> >g facts - or evidence - under the rug won't make them go away.=20
> >>=20
> >> However, I'd love to know what he would advise us to DO to prevent future=
> > famines, wars, etc, even if there's nothing we can do to slow down natural=
> > disasters. Also, even if it turns out that ALL the planets are getting war=
> >mer and human behavior is just a relatively small factor on our planet, why=
> > aggravate the problems the way we've been doing?=20
> >>=20
> >> (The fact that so many refuse to change their behavior reminds me of what=
> > someone said about the youthful hedonism and materialism of the 1950s; the=
> > writer said that that culture was the result of living in the shadow of th=
> >e Bomb. Parents didn't want their kids to be fearful and miserable, after a=
> >ll - and adults wanted to have all the fun they could before WWIII broke ou=
> >t.)=20
> >>=20
> >> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-gets-c=
> >anceled-for-what-he-just-said-about-climate-change/ar-AA1eyC3S
> >
> >One wonders why, as a person with no expertise in climate models, he was as> >ked to lecture on them to an inexpert audience which
> >would be unable to evaluate his remarks.
> >
> >He has not been cancelled. There are many scientific conferences to which> > he could submit an abstract, for example the American Geophysical
> >Union conference in December. His abstract will be accepted and he will be> > granted a chance to be heard, as others of his type have
> >been before.
> >
> >Of course, presentations in such a forum are subject to questions. It is> > not the done thing to get cranky when people find flaws in your work.
> >
> >I've seen elsewhere that he claims that the cloud models in current climate> > programs are all wrong. Well, let him describe his critique
> >this December. Even better, let him write a paper showing how to make bett> >er cloud models. That would be doing science.
> >
> >I predict he will do neither.
> It seems odd that an 80 year old quantum physicist would
> suddenly become expert in a completely different field right
> after joining a climate change denial organization cleverly
> named the CO2 COALition.

Dunning-Kruger strikes even Nobel Lauriats. Let's recall Linus
Pauling and Vitamin C. D-K can also be induced by large
bundles of cash.

pt

On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 08:59:15 -0700 (PDT), Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 8:33:05?PM UTC-4, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 4:25:22?AM UTC+10, Lenona wrote:
>
>> > Also, even if it turns out that ALL the planets are getting warmer and human behavior is just a relatively small factor on our planet, why aggravate the problems the way we've been doing?
>> >
>
>> There's not, other planets aren't showing anything like the changes in climate Earth is
>> There's no observed increase in the sun's output, earth's orbit, axial tilt or any other factor that fits the observed behaviour, however it fits the predicted effect of increased greenhouse gasses very well
>
>I should have known. If there were proof that all the planets were getting warmer, we'd be hearing that from Fox News, at least, every week. (I only heard it once, from a non-scientist.)
>
>We'd also be hearing it regularly from The Former Guy, who, I just heard, would win in a landslide if the election were held today...groan.

Polls have a lot of potential (and sometimes actual) problems.

The only poll I believe is the election itself. And, as 2020 showed,
even /that/ can have its difficulties.

And that is still quite a ways off.

Theoretically, we could still end up with, say, Newsom/Buttigieg vs
DeSantis/Boebert. Now /that/ would be a contest worth watching!

But we'll probably get D Trump v J Biden 2.

--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"