By Dr. Lubos Motl
Excerpt:
But it is clearly the other one-half of the Nobel Prize that turned the Nobel Prize into a corpse in my eyes. The other types of Nobel Prizes, especially those for peace and perhaps literature, have a track record featuring lots of terrorists and communists who got their award for something disgusting that was however popular among some leftists or haters of the Western world and similar folks. The late terrorist Arafat had to get one because he was a darling of many such people. Obama got a prize for peace before he did anything of substance and before he started dozens of wars (Trump would have deserved the Nobel Prize in Peace about 50 times more than Obama but for obvious political reasons, he didn’t get one). Al Gore got his one-half of a Nobel Prize for a fraudulent PowerPoint presentation about the catastrophic global warming because tons of dishonest leftists loved these kinds of anti-scientific lies.
But so far, the hard scientific prizes, and especially the Nobel Prize in Physics, were largely shielded from this toxic worthless garbage. This is over because the other one-half of the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics was given to Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann
for the physical modelling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming.
Wow, just wow. You may click at the names to confirm the expectation that these men did some influential early work on climate modeling. And I think that these men aren’t even the most radical activists who would love to exaggerate the projections more than others. But don’t make a mistake about it. The climate modeling hasn’t led to any new yet reliable insights. In those 50 years, while the short-term weather models have made some progress, the long-term models have made virtually none and it is especially the case of the question about the magnitude of the influence of CO2 on the climate. All the relevant quantities (like the climate sensitivity) remained about as uncertain as when these modelling efforts were launched and the claim about the “reliable prediction of global warming” is a pure lie.
So there is no reason for a Nobel Prize, especially not one that would go to somewhat random “physicists of the climate”.
But even if the two men deserved such an award, which they don’t, it is absolutely unforgivable how the prize was justified. It was justified by buzzwords (I especially mean the nonsensical superstitious phrase “global warming”) that are almost identical like those in the justification of the Nobel Prize in Peace for pure scammers such as Al Gore. In this way, the Nobel Prize has committed suicide and I don’t want to hear about it again. The political motivation of this prize is 100% obvious. These people have been picked to steal a part of the credit accumulated by physics, the hardest discipline of sciences, and give it to one of the worst pseudoscientific superstitions of the contemporary era.
I reserve the right to ban any commenter who mentions the Nobel Prize in a positive sense.
It is no coincidence that my 2011 blog post which included the quote (about the order and chaos) from Feynman’s book was discussing an insane UN climate conference that looked maximally similar to the conference that drove Feynman up the wall. This link between “complexity” and “global warming” – which was made very explicit in the Nobel Prize today – has never been a coincidence. As I mentioned in numerous blog posts including very recent ones, the worshiping of complexity and muddy thinking has been one one of the key pillar underlying the climate religion. The deceitful statements about the climate change are driven by people with a muddy thinking and the shortage of integrity who love to hide in the chaos. They know that whenever things are done properly or there are real scientific expectations, they lose any influence because they suck as thinkers, especially as honest or accurate thinkers.
#
Related:
Climate modeling has been a total fail.
A Nobel prize was awarded for that total failure… total failure that has been useful only as communist propaganda.https://t.co/yLE0LWFFvs via @business
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) October 6, 2021
STUDY: UN climate Models ‘inconsistent’ with real temperature
NASA finds something else climate models are missing…. forcing from ‘Secondary Organic Aerosols’
6 New Papers: Climate Models Are Literally Worth ZERO – Even Water Vapor + Feedback ‘Does Not Exist’
‘Climate models predict’ – women, minorities, and children hit hardest, film at 11.
Santer Climate Study Claim: 97% Consensus is now 99.99997%! Climatologist debunks: ‘Climate models are programmed to only produce human-caused warming’ – Media hypes study: 99.9999 percent chance we’re the cause of global warming, study says
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: “Current climate models are programmed to only produce human-caused warming”
“The new Santer et al. study merely shows that the satellite data have indeed detected warming (not saying how much) that the models can currently only explain with increasing CO2 (since they cannot yet reproduce natural climate variability on multi-decadal time scales).
That’s all.
But we already knew that, didn’t we? So why publish a paper that goes to such great lengths to demonstrate it with an absurdly exaggerated statistic such as 1 in 3.5 million (which corresponds to 99.99997% confidence)? I’ll leave that as a rhetorical question for you to ponder.”
‘Ridiculous Climate Prophecy’: How the UN & National Climate Assessment used ‘fairy tail’ extreme climate models to scare the public – Donna Laframboise: “RCP8.5, I think of it as Ridiculous Climate Prophecy” – “Fairy tales to describe how humans might impact the climate by the year 2100.”
It can’t become reality, they point out, unless humanity burns five times more coal than we currently do, “an amount larger than some estimates of recoverable coal reserves.” Whenever RCP8.5 gets mentioned, they say, it should be clearly labelled as an “unlikely worst case.”
Incredibly, that ‘major scientific report’ (National Climate Assessment) takes RCP8.5 seriously. Calling it a “core scenario,” page 6 of the report presents it as a realistic possibility rather than a farfetched hallucination:
“RCP8.5 is generally associated with higher population growth, less technological innovation, and higher carbon intensity of the global energy mix.”
This means the report is junk. No matter how many federal agencies were involved in its creation. But the New York Times didn’t tell readers that.
