well so this is this is actually an interesting question as well. You know, when we were talking offline, you mentioned, you know, that in this area there's quite a bit of pseudoscience, essentially things that are accepted as true but that have not been rigorously proven by any means. But this is actually a general issue in many fields, not just in this one. Some of it, in particular in climate change, is actually very dishonest disinformation that has been presented by various politicians. And uh, one of the most important ones, uh, that I think has happened is a done by was done by NOAA, National Orthographic and Atmospheric Association. There was an article in 2013 in Physics Today. Physics Today is the standard, uh, technical news journal for physicists, and it was written by two non-scientists, uh, Jane Lewijenko and Thomas Carl. Pacheco was the um, Under Secretary of Commerce for Climate Change, and Carl was the director of NOAA for Climate Change, and they published a very, uh, an egregious piece of disinformation in Physics.

today, how it got past referees assuming there were referees for physics today, uh, I don't know, but this was in the era when, uh, climate change had been, was being rebranded. If you recall, originally we referred to this as global warming, and then all of a sudden, somewhere around 2013 or so, uh, it got rebranded as climate change, and the question is, well, why is it, uh, why are we changing the name? Uh, well, the reason that was, uh, given, uh, at the time was, well, because it's really more than just warming. Nobody minds if it's a degree warmer, but, but it's the effects, uh, uh, the claimed effects are that we will have a dramatic increase in extreme weather events, uh, land-falling hurricanes, uh, hot spells, cold spells, uh, uh, floods, droughts, things, horrible things that apocalyptic things, if you will, uh, will occur as a result of global warming, and so we're going to call it climate change. And so what this Physics Today article did, they produced an extreme weather event index, which in somehow was some

weighted average of number of droughts, floods, hurricanes, and the like. They then tallied from NOAA data. What this index was for a hundred years. They then presented plots of this index value that they had had for a hundred years. And then in the headlines of their article, they said that the extreme weather events are all being caused by global warming and that their frequency has been dramatically rising, especially in the last three decades. So, okay, I became associated when I was working at Cal Berkeley on the quantum mechanics on my various experiments in quantum mechanics with two very important Nobel laureates. One was Louis Alvarez and one was Charlie Townes. Louis Alvarez is very famous for having developed the so-called five Sigma Criterion for believability experiments in physics. Physics is the only one that uses that the standard for believability, especially in medicine, in economics, and in particular in climate change, is far weaker. These two men would look at data like those presented by

Lomachenko and Jenko and Carl and Alvarez would, uh, growl, or rather, Gruff guy, and would say, flattest line I ever saw, and Charlie towns was a bit more applied. He would say, I don't see in the data what you're telling me that I am supposed to see. So what I did was I just simply traced out of the graphics of the put in the article, their data, uh, and I plotted it twice. Once forwards properly and was time reversed where I lived 100 years ago with today. And so that the, uh, and vice versa, uh, so that the arrow, the time was increasing to the left. You can't tell them apart. If you can't tell which way is, uh, time is going, then it's very difficult to claim that it's obvious that the climate extremes index, uh, is increasing it up. And my equation is, are you really willing to bet trillions of dollars that you know which is right? Is it really increasing? It is clearly not.

moreover, one of the things I noticed reading Steve Coonan's book because speaker is the absent in their list of extreme weather events. Uh, you they left out EF3 plus tornadoes frequency, and if you add an image, it's actually clearly decreasing because the frequency of high-energy tornadoes has actually been decreasing. Uh, early in the last 50 years. So this, in my opinion, is a rather egregious breach of honesty by the US government and by NOAA, and it is clearly done by political persuasion. How the mechanics of the political, uh, persuasion period. I, I, I have no idea. All I have noticed is that the Physics Today article is total crap, you know, and not only as I understand it are these extreme weather events not increasing, but our ability to mitigate them has increased. So they're just not as much of an issue. There's anything we can do. It's there Twain's old still everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it. Anything that were proposals, uh, I'm religiously expensive, and they're

totally ineffectual. There's no way you're going to have any effect, but the okay by surprise is that people are upset with what I'm giving. I believe to be good news. The good news is we don't need to. It's all. We don't. The CO2 is this worry about CO2, the worry about methane, to worry about global warming is all a total fabrication by shock journalists and and or dishonest politicians. Well, you know, there's there's a huge uh bureaucratic infrastructure, let's call it an industry that's developed. I mean, I don't know what it's worth, but it's hundreds of billions of dollars, trillions. I don't know, it's very big. Okay and and in the upwards issue, right? Yes. Well, I think one of the problems that I I've been encountering is that once you have made a decision based on this incorrect uh information, you are pretty much wedded to to defend it and and people in great power who have made these decisions do are very unhappy.

being having it revealed or being accused of having made uh incorrect trillion-dollar uh decisions. So, have you asked other scientists or you know, especially people involved in this specific field, to look at what you've discovered and give their opinion on it from their expert perspective? Just recently, uh, uh, the text of the talk that I was going to give that I sent you, I have set off and I'm waiting for additional comments from, uh, Will Hopper, who was, uh, Clinton's science advisor and runs the CO2 Coalition, and, uh, Steve Coonan, who was Obama's, uh, climate advisor, uh, who were a very bright businesses by various discussions with, uh, of various other physicists. I have had no one who's been able to or has, uh, shown me, uh, where I'm, uh, where I'm wrong, but it's, uh, it will take time to get to get studied. So you're kind of making a project now of finding different elephants in the room, so to speak. Is that, is well, it's sort of what physicists do is another thing that the emperor is is.

dark naked the one problem that many have is you know if you really look at data and you follow it uh carefully it may lead you to um Politically Incorrect areas do you really want to go there I it doesn't bother me but it bothers uh others I guess I personally uh uh am in favor uh of Truth uh the the that's what physicists do is is is to discover uh natural truth do you make a distinction with you know this let's say politically motivated uh scientific literature and pseudoscience indeed well I gave a talk recently in Korea where I pointed out that there are really two different kinds of of Truth um there is what what physicists do or at least what we should do is look observe nature and make conclusions from what we actually see from our observations from our experiments that constitutes truth if the if the experiments are done carefully and analyzed uh critically and peer reviewed by others uh that's what physicists do is to cross-check each other's work and try to

come up with uh with new understanding businessmen politicians uh journalists uh [Music]. All have a very different mode of truth. If that is perception of Truth perception or truth is whether or not you can sell it. If you can sell it, it must be true. If you can't sell it, uh, it must be false. Uh, now one of the differences between and has let's have nothing to do with with the real truths which is what you would get by uh measuring uh going out and measuring it and getting real data is to what the what the truth is but the an important difference between the two kinds of Truth is that perception of Truth is malleable that is you can uh change it, uh, so say you can't sell it but you still want to sell it that's all right, well just change the truth but how do we do that well by advertising we call it product differentiation, uh, we we want to show that there's a difference between our product and somebody else's product even though there is none so we create

this uh this difference and we can change the truth uh and whereas real truth you can't change. The experiments, the observations are true. Uh for example, the uh ibtc perceives that the cloud cover is constant. And although it clearly it does not agree with the observations. All you have to do is just look at the satellite pictures. You see that it's it's highly variable. This can be used in very dishonest ways by intentionally promoting false information. Also known as disinformation. They call it promotion. Uh or advertising. When uh politicians and governments do it. They call it spin. They call it propaganda. And it really has very little to do with with reality. They just simply need this to be true to promote whatever uh product they're selling. Whatever uh purpose they have in mind. Uh whatever wars they want to create or the like. I've been doing this for century trees. Uh with with propaganda now the problem then is that this has all become totally pervasive. The there are there are no referees for and in particular of late.

politicians are becoming self-styled scientists and promoting scientific disinformation. They just simply make up scientific different information. This is very common in client science. It is very common in medicine. It is particularly common in economics. So now one of the problems is that there are no decent fact-checkers available. How does a fact-checker know what is true and what is not if you can't? And this is particularly become apparent with these new with programs like chat GPT. It is better at spreading disinformation than the program's authors. It just simply makes up stuff as it needs it. It can't even solve do arithmetic. It is so stupid. Nonetheless, it can lie. It can cheat. It can fabricate references. There's a recent article in the New York Times reading where some poor lawyer submitted a brief to a court that was written by chat GPT and the judge looked at it was a little bit skeptical and he noticed that virtually all of the citations in the

brief were fabricated none of them were true. I think the lawyer is being disbarred by the judge for having it having done so. Uh, yeah, there's all kinds of scientific conditions, and nobody knows what's right and what's wrong, maybe because it's all built into the literature. Uh, and there seems to be no way of determining the difference. Like, for example, everybody knows you can fly faster than the speed of light. I mean the Star Trek, uh, these, uh, Enterprise does it all you need is dilithium crystals so it's got to be possible. No, it's not. This has become such a serious problem. The Nobel committee, uh, has set up a panel to try to figure out how to deal with it, uh, they unfortunately are modeling an after the ipcc. Uh, I think that's a big mistake for them to do that because the ipcc, uh, has become one of the worst offenders, uh, proliferation of suitable science or, uh, well, in their case, I think it's just a bad science that they, they

until more recently, uh, originally it was just an incorrect science, but now it has become, uh, politically, uh, inspired and required to be defended, you know. And in fact, this is, uh, reflected to some extent in, uh, the findings of John Dr. Johne Andidis from, uh, from Stanford where he saw, you know, a lot of, a lot of contemporary scientific literature just doesn't checked out under closer scrutiny. Nutrition is also one of another field or all of this is, is under the influence of the associated Industries, each one using it for competition or the other well eating that food is bad for you, uh, well in the other that's being promoted by the, the other Foods, uh, industry. Sort of one of the famous ones is the pork, the other white meat. The guy got a prize for that one, um. So you've started working with the CO2 Coalition presumably because you want to, you know, promulgate your findings here and and so what is what is your vision for what you want to do? Well, they, they had invited me to join I.

agree with their message. It's not clear yet that they agree with mine. Their point has been um, uh, that CO2 is actually beneficial. Uh, I, I personally agree with that. That, in fact, like for example, if I understand, uh, if you pump, uh, CO2 into a greenhouse, you can dramatically increase the growth rate of the plants inside. It's, uh, actually, uh, beneficial in many ways, and it seems silly to try to, uh, to limit it. To Apple, when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth, the CO2 levels were 10 times bigger than what we have, uh, what we experience right now. They could not, dinosaurs could not have survived on this Earth, uh, with this low CO2 level because you don't grow trees fast enough and foliage fast enough to feed them. They have, they are big and they have big appetites and eat lots of stuff, and you need the high CO2 in order in the atmosphere to, uh, just to feed them. College buddy of mine at Caltech was one instrumental in this, a fellow named Art Robinson who move out

of the Heartland Institute. The promoting CO2 is being actually a beneficial gas, as far as I can tell. There's nothing wrong with it, and this, and in particular, it is what I have just mentioned earlier. It is not at all, uh, uh, uh, significant in controlling the earth's climate. So, so, what's the bottom line? What should we be doing here, in your view? Number one, all of the programs of which pervade virtually every part of the government, especially EPA policy, energy policy, all of them are all set to, uh, limit, uh, CO2 in the atmosphere, in the environment, and methane in the, in the environment, and they are huge, massive waste of resource, a very valuable resources that could be being used for, for better, uh, better humanitarian purposes, but there's a total waste of money and time and effort, uh, and it is strangling industry. EPA policies are a total disaster. All of these policies should be stopped immediately, in my opinion. My suspicion is what I am saying here will be totally ignored because people don't

like being told that they've made big mistakes of this magnitude well and this is what I was going to ask what are policy makers saying to you as you've been reporting to this this to them or or perhaps others have been sharing you know what you've been talking about lately. I had a very way to Stockholm with uh uh Joe Biden in the Oval Office and I mentioned I only had a few minutes to mention all of this and his comment uh it sounds like right-wing science beyond that uh having gotten very far um uh perhaps the final thought Dr. Klauser as we finish I haven't the faintest idea how you correct the disinformation problem that is I think the most serious problem there is. I would hope that the government policies regarding climate change get changed uh uh pessimistic whether that will happen uh but I still uh want to paraphrase every Dirksen yeah a trillion here a trillion there pretty uh and you're talking real money. I think this is a very serious problem that

needs to be corrected well, and I'll just make a comment here, a final comment on my end. You mentioned that the scientific disinformation is one of the biggest problems. You don't know how to deal with that well, very often disinfor, so-called disinformation, is uh created or, you know, distributed in the name of fighting disinformation, so it gets even more complicated. Well, one thing that nobody seems to have noticed in this regard, um, in with the rise of Information Technology and, uh, in particular in, uh, artificial information, there has been another elephant in the room that no one seems to have noticed. In the old days, we use computers to do balance our, our bank accounts, to do accounting, to do marvelous things, and there to do scientific calculations. I mean, computers have had millions and millions of applications at a totally revolutionized the world. The primary value that they had was they didn't make mistakes. The arithmetic is always correct. The sneaky thing that has somehow been sneaked through by information technology is our acceptance of computers.

that don't that make lots of mistakes. I have had a friend who wrote a program to evaluate very simple formulas for yacht race finish times. Put in the formula uh had at a used chat gbt to uh generate this chat gbt couldn't even do arithmetic correctly what it's owned uh formulas. It could not uh evaluate the the big problem with artificial intelligence is that it makes tons and tons of mistakes and even worse it uses the uh online data as its source material and it hasn't the foggiest idea which is fiction and which is non-fiction. The big transition has been from computers that never made mistakes can through computers that make massive numbers of mistakes. It couldn't tell you whether or not as fast as possible to fly faster than the speed of light and somehow the the big con by the artificial intelligence uh industry is conning us into accepting this this is oh well of course uh well yeah they do make mistakes but we're working on that. So I I think that is a very serious.

problem, uh, that I will blame squarely on, uh, artificial intelligence. I think this is. It's just, uh, catastrophe, you know. I do want to ask you one more thing, and this artificial intelligence actually does figure into this. Over the last several years, especially during the last three years, there's been a lot of censorship of scientific opinion and significations, and one notable example. You know, you had Stanford's Dr. J. Battacharya, Harvard's Martin Koldorf, and, uh, Oxford's Sanjay Gupta. They co-wrote, uh, an alternative view, right on, uh, to the scientific Orthodoxy, you know, called the Great Barrington declaration, and this was censored. They were called Fringe epidemiologists. There's a sort of culture of censorship. I wonder if you noticed this, and what is your reaction to that. Some of the work of climate change has been censored. I was recently invited to give a present, uh, pretty much the what I talked about on, on your program, uh, by, uh, the International Monetary Fund, uh, World Bank group in Washington, uh, and once they heard apparently my

talk in Korea that I mentioned that I was a skeptical of climate change they summarily canceled the talk. This was done by the director of the office of independent evaluation Office of the IMF and I was told that he was under pressure to cancel my talk and postpone it to some later date. It has not been rescheduled to my knowledge yet. So and they wanted to change the format to have somebody around for rebuttals. I guess I don't know. But they just simply decided that no they didn't want to hear it. I guess my question is you know do you think that it's okay to censor certain scientific opinion for political reasons. But do you is that do you have a good Lord no go ahead [Music] or for you know because ostensibly Fahrenheit 4 -1 yeah the book burning we have we have been through book burnings in the past they have been catastrophic. I mean this goes clear back to Galileo

who is uh threatened with being burned at the stake for uh uh the fact that uh he was disputing the uh the Vatican's opinion on orbital mechanics of the of the solar system. And so, fortunately, he decided, Okay, I'll stop uh, given the alternative of being burned alive at the stake, uh I'll I'll stop writing about it. But fortunately, his his writings on the subject survived. Well, Dr. John klauser, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. There you go, uh I'm happy to have been uh here and allowed to express my views. Thank you all for joining Dr. John klauser and me on this episode of American thought leaders. I'm your host, Yanya Kellick foreign.

[ATL] 노벨상 수상자 “모든 기후 모델은 한 가지 중요한 변수를 빠뜨리고 있다” (2부)

진실, 그리고 전통은
에포크미디어의 모토입니다.  

팩트에 기반한 정직한 뉴스. 
신문에 도덕을 되돌려주는 전통적인 저널리즘으로 
에포크미디어는
미국에서 가장 빠르게 성장하고 있습니다. 

에포크미디어는 미국 뉴욕에 본사를 두고 
35개국 21개 언어로 출판하는 
독립적인 뉴스 미디어입니다. 

지금, 에포크미디어를 만나보세요.
https://kr.theepochtimes.com/
https://www.ntdtv.kr/

여러분의 후원은 큰 힘이 됩니다.
하나은행 (주)에포크미디어코리아 415-910022-14004