I read the article in German a certain newspaper translated it. Originally it was published in the Washington Post. Personally I believe in climate change. However I like to listen to contrarian takes. But there is always the danger of false balance. Especially with the fossile fuel companies that invest millions or even billions to spread doubts/ fake news on climate change.
My first own doubts came when I listened to an interview with Anton Zeilinger. He won the physics noble prize 2022. He is not the one who questions climate crisis. But in this certain interview he said something like: Noone can predict the future what will be in like 30 or 50 years. And everyone who pretends otherwise lies. This is at least my memory of the quote maybe it is distorted. The dude sounded insanely intelligent and destroyed the clip which should introduce the audience to his work. He is also catholic which fueled my anxiety about a revengeful God. However I still posted the "Is God pro-death?" thread yesterday.
The climate change denier is called John Clauser who also won the physics noble Prize 2022 together with Zeilinger.
Here are some interesting parts of the article: I am scared of copyright infringement so I did not copy everything. There were many parts that I skipped where they emphasized that many serious climate scientists completely reject his halfknowledge. But these parts were not the meat of the story. (Lol):
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."
"Great news! There is no climate crisis!"
"Much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is not in peril," Clauser told an audience of about a dozen people in the hotel conference room and others watching online. "I call myself a climate denier," he added. "I've been told that's not politically correct. So I guess I'm a climate crisis d-word person."
Clauser bragged that he met privately with President Biden in the Oval Office last year, when the 2022 Nobel Prize winners were invited to the White House. He said he criticized Biden's climate and energy policies, to which he said the president replied: "Sounds like right-wing science."
Clauser, who has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change, has homed in on one message in particular: The Earth's temperature is primarily determined by cloud cover, not carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. He has concluded that clouds have a net cooling effect on the planet, so there is no climate crisis.
Michael Mann, a professor of earth science at the University of Pennsylvania, said this argument is "pure garbage" and "pseudoscience."
But Anton Zeilinger, an Austrian physicist who shared the Nobel Prize with Clauser last year, said in an interview that he has "very high respect" for his scientific rigor, although he cautioned that he is not an expert on climate science.
"Einstein, when he proposed his ideas, was considered crazy and an outsider," said Zeilinger, a professor of physics emeritus at the University of Vienna. "It has happened in science that the majority was dead wrong. I have no idea if that is the case here, but science has to be open to debate."
"There is a skeptical streak in the physics community regarding climate science," Nadir Jeevanjee, a research physical scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote in a recent critique of Koonin's book.
In an interview, Jeevanjee said that while climate science is based in physics, not all physicists are experts in climate science. But that hasn't stopped some distinguished physicists from portraying themselves as experts and sowing doubt, he said.
Some physicists who reject the scientific consensus on climate change have received funding from fossil fuel companies.
Clauser said he does not receive any money from oil, gas and coal interests.
OP again. So these were the parts I wanted to highlight. I still think climate change is very real and a very serious danger. But I am not 100% sure anymore. The article was a very interesting read. Maybe I am contributing to something very seriously bad with posting this thread. (due to the fact I might fuel climate denialism.) But as a frequent poster on SaSu one has to live with such allegations anyway. (to contribute to something very seriously bad lol).
Last edited:
some data about "extreme wealth," which often associated with climate change as a worsening symptom.
