I don't really care whether a Nobel laureate or a fresh student speaks the truth (- with evidence, of course!). The truth doesn't need any embellishment by a Nobel committee to stand tall.
But for those (mental slaves?) who are impressed by authority and man-made (hence fallible) "prizes", not by evidence, this blog post might help.
It turns out there are THOUSANDS of senior scientists who are convinced (on the basis of data) that the whole rigmarole about global warming (which is of course true, and has been occurring in a mild form from WELL BEFORE mankind started emitted tons of CO2) is grossly overblown.
[Ivar Gieavaer, who shared the 1973 prize for work on tunneling in superconductors] derided the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri a peace prize, and called agreement with the evidence of climate change a “religion.”
Gieavar found the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case: “What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”
He disagreed that carbon dioxide was involved and showed several charts that asserted, among other things, that climate had even cooled. “I pick and choose when I give this talk just the way the previous speaker picked and chose when he gave his talk,” he added.
He finished with a pronouncement: “Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely.”
Here we go – the greatly hyped consensus falls on its head.
The basic problem in this case is, of course, is that there are just too many sheep in the world. Very few (a few thousand?) who understand the concept of science and are willing to think for themselves and DEMAND proof.
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email: