Personal tools

Futile attempts at discussing climate change with Lubos Motl, a string theorist who thinks climate change is a conspiracy theory, based on his blog postings...


  • "To summarize, what WG2 [IPCC Working Group II] is saying is mostly a shameful piece of crap [...]."
  • "[The IPCC is a] bureaucratic tumor of professional parasites and liars [...]."
  • "Have you ever attended a protest against Newton's gravitational law? A protest against Maxwell's equations? Or a protest against another basic law of Nature? If you have not, you have a great opportunity. Today, the green activists organize worldwide protests against one of these natural laws, namely against the climate change."

He also appears very selective in his perception. E.g., his post with the lurid title Kilimanjaro ice cap melting: warming not the culprit quotes an article which states that although glaciers are retreating around the globe due to climate change, Kilimanjaro's ice seems to be melting due to other causes. Hmm, the point being? Indeed, he likes to post articles about cold weather around the globe...

As a string theorist, he detests people investigating any alternative approaches to quantum gravity other than string/M-theory. Especially scientists researching loop quantum gravity (LQG) get to feel the full brunt of his hatred:

"The sitcom also correctly indicates that subpar subdisciplines of theoretical physics such as LQG are more often than usually investigated by women (because the main thing that supports these directions is affirmative action, not merit) and they are often arrogant and ugly bitches who love to backbite others. ;-)" from here

Apart from ideological motivations, there is actually zero empirical/experimental evidence and all theories unifying gravity with quantum theory are far from any possible validation and "require" drastically new concepts of reality (higher dimensions, new forms of so-called supersymmetric matter, ...). This is actually one of the main aims of the mammoth LHC project at CERN, to improve this situation...

From a scientific perspective, he doesn't really seem to have appreciated recent developments and trends in science moving away from the analytical description of fundamental processes of reality, and tackling complex systems, such as the climate, as a network of interactions tackled with (computer) simulational analysis next to mathematical models. The hallmark of such biological, physical and social complex systems is inherent randomness and non-linearity next to spooky properties such as emergence, where new features emerge at coarser levels of magnification which were not present in the micro-dynamics describing the system. Some of my blogging on fundamental processes vs. complexity and analytical vs. algorithmic tools: fundamental, complex, in a nutshell, swarm theory, scaling laws, quotes, laws of nature. and a presentation on complex systems.

His idiosyncrasies are also terribly obvious in his political views and he thrives on vicious personal attacks:

"Some of the Republicans have already claimed that the GOP with its loud "No" was reacting to Nancy Pelosi's partisan speech: well, I must tell you, that's a pretty bad policy to decide about the world economy according to an emotional reaction to an irrelevant bitch." from here

All this perhaps explains the premature end of his promising academic career in 2007, after having been assistant professor at Harvard and well established in his community. Currently (end of 2008) he is said to be back in the Czech Republic with no academic affiliation and is continuing with his prolific blogging.

Of course it is possible, that on a personal level of interaction, he actually turns out to be an interesting, inspiring and amicable person. But his virtual or digital footprint sure does draw a drastically different picture and in my opinion, strategies like personal insults, ad hominem attacks, myopic worldviews, fanatic idealism, stubbornness,  cherry-picking facts, fixed preconceived ideas and such aren't very sustainable and fruitful if you live in a world where you depend on interactions with others...


More on him:

  • Lubos Motl’s disgraceful attack on Lee Smolin
  • here:
    • "[L. Motl] has repeatedly insulted me, my husband and my friends. He has misquoted me, and used alleged quotations of mine to insult others."
    • "He has proclaimed I should not have a Ph.D., that my 'female brain' only 'parrots nonsense' and all my papers are 'bullshit."
    • "[L. Motl] seems to have an enormous amount of time doing nothing than explaining how stupid others are."
  • here: "[L. Motl] made some rude sexist remarks about her being female on his Reference Frame blog."
  • watch him sing a song on youtube.com

PA: coldest April in 32 years - May 04, 2007

PA: coldest April in 32 years

jbg said...

dear lubos, honestly, i didn't want to waste any more of my (and obviously your) time by reading and commenting on your blog (although the physics related content is mostly very informative). however, there was something in the back of my mind which i just wanted to ask you.

i sincerely hope you don't just ignore me as you mostly tend to do or delete my comment, as i would really appreciate an answer. it would seriously help me understand your motivation and perspectives on climate science.

it is clear that you see no connection between human activities and the global climate, i.e., anthropogenic pollution and climate change.

however, i am not quite sure about your take on global warming (i.e., the increase in the average temperature of the earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decade) and the increase of extreme weather events - whatever the cause.

you very often like to post newspaper articles citing cold events around the globe. e.g., "Nashville, Tennessee: record cold" or "Global warming arrives to Versoix, Switzerland".

i don't quite understand your motivation there, because - as one of your supporters once commented in reaction to someone mentioning warm weather occurrences - citing single weather events doesn't really say very much.

do you think that the events you report constitute some kind of proof that there is no average global warming happening, or are you simply having fun in being provocative?

indeed, what also baffled me was the link to the bbc article you give above. as the title of your posting is "PA: coldest April in 32 years", it is interesting you would quote an article, that says:

"Climate change is forcing skiers to go ever higher to find snow [...]."

"Overall, though, it's been a poor season as it was too warm. Some resorts had to close in January, normally the coldest part of the winter, and others had to shut lifts early because of a lack of snow."

"The area also provides dramatic evidence of climate change as one can see where the glaciers have retreated. Many of the mountain huts were built by the side of the glacier, but now several decades on these huts are often hundreds of yards from the edge of the glacier."

"It may have been the warmest April since records began, but where I'm standing it's April and it's still winter. But then I'm at an altitude of 3,900 meters [...]."

so did you actually read the article beyond the first sentence saying "Standing on the Aletsch glacier above the Swiss resort of Grindelwald it's hard to believe that winter is supposed to be over."? or what was exactly your point there?

and yes, i did see the winking smiley you placed after the link, which didn't really help me understand your incentive.

in my opinion, your postings of cold weather events begs the question of how serious you are. if you are joking, it's a bit of a waste of time. if not, then you either don't really seem to do much research or appear to have crossed the line between being objective and ideological, in using any argument to serve your means, regardless how far-fetched.

i really don't want to question your abilities or sincerity in assessing climate science, but this part of your reasoning is in my opinion idiosyncratic at best.

anyway, thank you and so long,



by the way, the bbc article fits in pretty well with what anyone living in central europe will attest to: last winter was characterized by very mild temperatures. in switzerland there has never been a warmer autumn measured. january had record temperatures as high as 24 degrees celsius (indeed, most of the time it was warmer in zurich in january 07 than it was in august 06!). although there was a very late heavy snowfall at the end of march, the whole winter was observed to be 2.5 - 4 degrees warmer than the long term average.

the following link points to a chronology of climate events for switzerland since august 2006. most articles are from tagesanzeiger.ch one of the largest national daily newspaper of switzerland.

maybe you are thinking that i'm also just quoting random meteorological events. perhaps this is so. but what i find interesting is that records are broken for cold and warm events, often back-to-back.

and from experience there are two things to say. firstly, its getting warmer here (which can also be observed in how nature is adapting) and secondly, extreme weather changes are happening quite often (as currently: on the 29th of mai it was 9 degrees celsius and 5 days before that it was 27 degrees). and this is not only my personal view. e.g., mountaineers are experience their sport as becoming ever more dangerous in summer with melting glaciers, thawing permafrost and falling rocks.

on a slightly longer time frame, summer 03 was recordbreakingly scorching here and winter 00/01 was termed "winter of the century" as it brought amazing amounts of snow.

one remarkable fact from the economist's article "Doing it their way - Americas attitudes to global warming are complex, and are changing" was:

"One fifth of [Republican] voters hunt or shoot, and two thirds of hunters and anglers vote Republican. In the first poll of their views, carried out in Mai of this year [2006], 76% of these sportsmen said they had personally noticed climate change [...]."


seeing yourself as a 'conservative physicist' i would expect you in general to agree with the views of the economist. indeed, the economist publicly supported bjorn lomborg.

on september 7th 2006, the magazine brought out a survey on climate change ( on line, purchase, lead article from that edition).

a nice quote from "In the loop:

"The baffling complexity of the climate-and thus the difficulty of predicting what is going to happen to it-arises principally from its feedback loops. Scientists are finding out about ever more of them, which is why things don't seem to be getting much clearer over time."

further articles in the survey: "Where the wild things are":

"Whereas people these days are mostly able to adapt their environment to suit themselves, the world's other inhabitants still have to adapt themselves to their environment. When circumstances change, they adjust in two main ways: by changing the timing of important life events, such as hibernation, migration and breeding; or [...] by moving to find more comfortable living quarters."

"[They] found that, of a total of 677 [species], nearly two-thirds had brought forward the important events in their calendar. The Mexican jay in the Chiricuahua Mountains in Arizona, for instance, is breeding ten days earlier than it was 30 years ago. Tree swallows' breeding season advanced by an average of nine days between 1959 and 1991. In the Rocky Mountains, the yellow-bellied marmot is emerging from hibernation 23 days earlier than it did in the 1970s."

"Of the 434 species that had moved their range, four-fifths had moved northwards or to higher ground. The red fox, for instance, has colonised an extra 600 miles of Baffin Island. That's fine for the red fox, which, as the owner of any British dustbin knows, is in no danger of dying out, but less good for the Arctic fox at whose heels it is snapping."

"Dismal calculations - The economics of living climate change - or mitigating it"

"Selling hot air - Kyoto's main achievement was to create a market in carbon. It's flawed, but better than nothing"

"Those in peril by the sea - Two of the biggest risks from climate change are a shutdown of the Gulf Stream and a rise in sea levels"

"Reaping the whirlwind - Hurricanes used to be thought unconnected to climate change; now a link is emerging"

"Anti-hero - Within a decade, China will emit more greenhouse gases than any other country"

"Where to start - Technological and economic solutions to climate change are available; the problem is politics"

but perhaps you are not too supportive economists in the first place, and think along the lines of joseph l. mc cauley:

"I therefore suggest that the economists revise their curriculum and require that the following topics be taught: calculus through the advanced level, ordinary differential equations (including advanced), partial differential equations (including Green functions), classical mechanics through modern nonlinear dynamics, statistical physics, stochastic processes (including solving Smoluchowski–Fokker–Planck equations), computer programming (C, Pascal, etc.) and, for complexity, cell biology. Time for such classes can be obtained in part by eliminating micro- and macro-economics classes from the curriculum."


there are indeed people who compare creationism's attacks on evolution to attacks on climate science. taken from pandasthumb.org.

-- June 1, 2007

CNN: Exposed: The Climate of Fear: full video - May 02 and 08, 2007

CNN: Exposed:The Climate of Fear: full video

jbg said...

dear lubos,
just for fun: news.google.com [a link to dozens of news articles reporting on the accelerated melting of the Arctic ice reported by NASA] j
--May 2, 2007

lumo said...

Dear jbg, Arctic ice is oscillating, and it has been always oscillating, as dynamically as stock market or anything else. There's nothing unusual about it and there's really nothing dangerous about it, and the articles you mentioned just demonstrate inadequacy of the climate models that fail to account for short-term dynamics. For example, the ice that melts keeps the sea level untouched because of the so-called Archimedes' law. ;-)

-- May 2, 2007

jbg said...

dear lubos, perhaps three short comments are appropriate... i.) "When Arctic ice melts, it doesn't raise the level of the ocean, and doesn't threaten coastal communities with flooding. [...] But there is still reason to pay attention. Water from the Arctic Ocean plays an important role in Northern Hemisphere weather. The powerful Gulf Stream current moves warm water from the tropics past the east coast of the United States and Canada and northwestern Europe. If the Arctic continues to melt, some scientists fear the Gulf Stream will be diverted." from this cnn report from 2000 ii.) people have criticized climate models of exaggerating certain aspects. it's perhaps interesting to note that some developments are at the upper boundary of the forecasts. iii.) indeed, one would hardly expect complex systems as the global climate to only depend on few effects, so obviously the challenge is to incorporate as many relevant forces as possible. which again makes the modeling subtler, as offsetting phenomena, e.g., global dimming and global warming, are competing mechanisms influencing the path-dependent evolution of the systems state.



-- May 2, 2007

lumo said...

Dear jbg, not at all. The primary driver of the Gulf Stream is not thermohaline circulation but winds. See, for example, the third sentence of Wikipedia definition of the circulation. These winds are subsequently determined by the rotation of Earth. So if you want to mess up with the motion of the Gulf Stream, melting Arctic ice won't do it. You must actually stop Earth's rotation. Not sure whether Al Gore already says that the human activities are stopping the rotation of Earth. ;-) When you quote the 2000 media reports, it looks like you have no idea what's happening. It's been observed very clearly recently that the Gulf Stream is not changing its strength or path, see e.g. this blog with a link to Die Zeit. It's been everywhere in the newspapers but I can't find the articles too quickly now.

Best Lubos

-- May 2, 2007

jbg said...

dear lubos, perhaps, as ever, the situation is rather more involved than one might be inclined to think: -wikipedia.org: Shutdown of thermohaline circulation i.) -wikipedia.org: Shutdown of thermohaline circulation ii.)

regards, j

-- May 2, 2007

lumo said...

Dear jbg, the fact that the situation may look/be very complicated is a major reason why I tried to explain basic facts. I don't know what you want to say by citing random sentences in an article about the thermohaline circulation. If you read my explanation above - or the first sentences of the article whose portions you linked - you would know that thermohaline circulation is not the Gulf Stream, and there is evidence, on the contrary, that the Gulf Stream's impact is getting stronger - warming Western Europe relatively to America. Things are complicated, of course, but they can be understood - and maybe even you could start to understand them if you carefully read my texts and the texts I link, instead of spamming my blog with random links that must inevitably be confusing for you before you understand the basics that I am trying to explain you.

Good luck Lubos

-- May 2, 2007

jbg said...

dear lubos,

thank you for your instructive remarks. however, i do believe that the point was missed. firstly, for every one of your "texts" and the texts you link to there is at least one study showing the opposite. secondly, without having to bother with the philosophy of science, one can appreciate the difference between things being complicated on a fundamental level (i.e., pertaining to formal mathematical models of reality) or because they are parts of a large network displaying non-linear dynamics (i.e., most real complex systems we perceive at macroscopic levels which cannot be formally tackled except emulated by a computer simulation). unfortunately, as you sometimes appear very arrogant and smug, i'm not really fazed by your derogatory answer to my comment, and the fact that you build on your own authority (which honestly, i don't see you having at all for these issues, as you don't work in the fields). in fact, you somewhat remind me of a frustrated creationist;-) i don't know what drives you or what your expectations of life are (ok, honestly, i don't care) but is it so objectionable to try and live in a sustainable way in the sense that impacting anthropogenic forces (consumption of resources, production of waste,...) are critically analyzed? after all, the human species can't sustain life out of itself and depends on many "externalities". isn't collective intelligence about a systems ability to adapt and regulate? something the network of human individuals does not appear to be doing (e.g., the holocene extinction event as attempted ecocide). but probably you don't know what the **** i'm going on about, do you?

anyway, take care,


ps the "random sentences in an article about the thermohaline circulation" you objected to were about measurements and data, and the controversy regarding the issue.

[This comment was deleted by Lubos Motl. I resubmitted it with the following introductory text:

"i am surprised that my original comment got deleted after i had published it on-line. if you deleted it, i kindly ask you to be a fair sport and not censor opinions you are uncomfortable with. if you want me to leave, please say so and i will respect that..."

Again, the comment was deleted by Lubos Motl, however he responded by posting his own comment, seen in the next paragraph]

-- May 2, 2007

lumo said...

Dear jbg,

the reason why I erased that last comment of yours, and why I will do it again, is that the comment contained exactly zero of meaningful technical information. Instead, it was based on ideologically driven ad hominem attacks. I won't tolerate it here and I can't afford to tolerate it here. Go to one of those environmentalist trash websites, they will appreciate your contributions there.

-- May 3, 2007

jbg said...

dear lubos,

i am honestly sorry that you feel that way, as it was not my intention to cause animosity. to be fair, my comment didn't contain "exactly zero of meaningful technical information", as there were three issues briefly addressed: i.) the fact that the authors and studies you choose to quote and discuss are not the whole story, ii.) a remark concerning the difference between analytical models (of mostly fundamental aspects) of reality and algorithmic models thereof (simulating mostly real-world complex systems), and the notion of intricacy within the two contexts, iii.) a motivation/explanation regarding the links i posted in my comment of May 2, 2007 3:00:00 PM. regarding your assessment that my remarks are "ideologically driven ad hominem attacks", i do think you are exaggerating a little bit. ok, i jokingly compared you to a creationist, which maybe wasn't funny and perhaps uncalled for. in addition, the last paragraph may have been a bit too general and somewhat patronizing. i apologize for that. as for my opinion that "you sometimes appear very arrogant and smug", i do think that you have built up somewhat of a reputation for that (starting with your newsgroup posts in 2003 as far as i can judge). however, given an astute self perception, i take it that you are aware of this, and employ such measures for stylistic or rhetoric means.

for what it's worth,


--May 4, 2007

IPCC working group II: report - April 07, 2007

IPCC working group II: report

"WG1 is composed of scientists led by government bureaucrats and political activists."

"It is necessary for WG1 to prove what they're asked to prove, otherwise it would become clear that the very existence of the groups WG2, WG3 is a gigantic fraud - much like the existence of a large WG1, after all."

"To summarize, what WG2 is saying is mostly a shameful piece of crap but it is a politically correct piece of crap, and that's what really matters these days."

"[the IPCC is a] bureaucratic tumor of professional parasites and liars."


jbg said...

dear lubos,

thank you for your interesting post. perhaps you could clarify certain thoughts and disclose some sources that support your claims.

  • when you say "their [the IPCC's] task is to 'prove' that most of the recent climate change is man-made, despite any scientific evidence that shows the opposite" do you mean that there is evidence that the recent climate change is non-anthropogenic or are you saying that there is no scientific evidence that human global carbon emission of the last 200 years (currently at approx. 6'500 million metric tons per annum) has any measurable impact on the climate?
  • what do you mean by "the exaggerated yet modest warming 'predicted' by WG1"; what is a modest exaggeration, i.e., doesn't something cease to be exaggerated if it is modest? which standards quantify 'modest' or 'exaggerated'?
  • "correlations between the temperature and diseases are questionable, to say the least"; could you give references please?
  • when you say "while millions of people are dying today as opposed to a result of a hypothetical change in the future." do you imply that because millions of people are dying today, this sets an upper boundary on how many people can die in the future?
  • do you believe "rudimentary atmospheric physics" suffices to describe and explain the highly complex, adaptive global climate system with all its regulatory feedback mechanisms and dependencies?
  • you mention one study by dutch scientists who's models predict increasing rainfall in the Sahara region; what is the reason for you to find this study based on climate modeling more convincing than other studies based on climate modeling?
  • you are accusing the IPPC of being a bunch of corrupt, lying, alarmists, parasitic, bureaucratic, unscientific, fanatic people who want to prevent the poor of the world from accessing technology and improving their status; i take it that this is a founded objective observation you make about topics you are competent to asses and about people you have at least partly interacted with, and not just an arbitrary albeit vicious ad hominem attack lashing out at scientists not prescribing to your political idees fixes and the conspiracy theory you appear to be conjuring up around them?



-- Apr 10, 2007


Nashville, Tennessee: record cold - April 09, 2007

Nashville, Tennessee: record cold


jbg said...

again, it's not only about single events, but long-term trends and an increase in locally observed extremal events...

"Since temperature measurements began 150 years ago, it has been never been as warm in Basel and Zurich as in the last 12 months. The average temperatures correspond to what the world climate report forecasts for the year 2050."

"According to SF Meteo it is the first time since the beginning of measurements in the middle 19. Century that the annual average lay over 12 degrees Celsius. This average slightly exceeded the annual average of the extreme summer of 2003."

"Since one year there is an extreme heat surplus: the deviation was highest in the months of January and July with approximately 5 degrees Celsius. Septembers, November and February were 3 degrees warmer than usual. Only August was colder than usual."

"Viewed from the last 12 months, the warming according to SF Meteo amounts to approximately 2.5 degrees in 30 years."

"The newest UN climate report (IPCC) assumes a global warming of approximately 2 to 3 degrees to the year 2050."

Compiled from tagesanzeiger.ch

- Swiss National News Agency (sda)
- meteorological service of the Swiss national TV (SF Meteo)

More press articles on the Swiss climate in the last year here...

-- Apr 10, 2007


CO2 & temperature: ice core correlations - July 07, 2006

CO2 & temperature: ice core correlations

"The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. This fact has also been explained in The Great Global Warming Swindle. It follows that the C02 greenhouse effect has not been important in the history and we shouldn't expect that it will become important in the future. [...]"


jbg said...

"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. "


From 318 ppm to 380 ppm in 50 years...


-- Apr 2, 2007


lumo said...

Dear jbg, you should distinguish science and religion. CO2 might act as an amplifier but there exists no experimental evidence that this fact is relevant at all.

The RealClimate.ORG people are neither trustworthy people nor independent neutral scientists and what they write about this issue makes no sense whatsoever. See also fast comments where all these issues are discussed in detail.

Best wishes

-- Apr 2, 2007


jbg said...

hi lubos,

yes, you are absolutely right with your remark. too much scientific knowledge has been (and still is!) sacrificed on the altar of religion...

however, i would like to comment from two sides.

the switch from fundamental physics to the study of (real) complex systems [1,2] constitutes in my opinion an important paradigm shift: from formal mathematical representations to computational simulations. i.e., the analytical vs. algorithmic description of reality [3].

within this context, the climate is obviously a full blown complex system, with many of the traits associated with such systems: adaptivity, self-organization, emergence,... or more formally: non-linear feedback/coupling, stochastic fluctuations, path-dependence, ...

So in essence, our knowledge of the climate, with all its dependencies, is pretty small. Although this conclusion should be equally applicable to climate septics and concerned people, the scientific community appears to be converging towards a consensus. indeed, even the economy is shifting [4], which indicates either the opening of new opportunities for revenues or a mitigation attempt regarding an impending threat.

in addition, the whole climate debate and concern is centered solely around the physics. however, no one knows how the system of all living organisms will react as a complex, adaptive, structure-forming process to the changes induced by human activity, whatever it may be.

secondly, considering the possible magnitude of damage for the future of life on earth, i'd rather err on the side of being too concerned and take responsibility for my and humanities actions than underestimating a cataclysm because, well, the causal connection is not proven, there is so much uncertainty, it's all just a conspiracy of eco-alarmists, it was warmer in the past, ...

in the end it doesn't really matter. the history of life witnessed many extinction events. perhaps conscious beings would never have evolved if this history were altered. and finally, all of life will end anyway with the sun entering its red giant phase (unless life colonizes other planets, where the ultimate fate of the universe will set an upper bound to its existence).

but for the immediate future, there is a big difference every individual can contribute to the collective behavior of humanity, increasing its collective intelligence form something resembling cancer (rapid uncontrolled growth; invasion and destruction of adjacent tissues, i.e., the ecosystems); colonization, ...) to something more symbiotic...

with best regards,


[1] complexity: introductory literature
[2] short summary of complex systems
[3] fundamental vs. complex
[4] e.g. the economist, very skeptical and supportive of b. lomborg up to then: the heat is on;
or swiss re: tackling climate change

-- Apr 3, 2007


jbg said...

dear lubos

i really don't want to appear pedantic or ranting, and i'll shut up after this post, but i just would like to state some personal opinions which are drawn from experience and observation.

  •  in switzerland the tourism industry and some affected communities are concerned about melting alpine permafrost (which holds the loose rubble together that would otherwise cause debris avalanches hence threatening inhabited areas) and melting glaciers; theses developments have partly become acute in the last decade
  • it is not about global warming per se, it's about the increase of local extremal climate events. take switzerland in the last year as an example (sources are various swiss media)
    • warmer:
      • In Switzerland many places experienced the warmest July in 2006 since the beginning of temperature measurements in 1864.
      • September 2006 was the warmest September in the last 150 years for the whole of Switzerland.
      • October 2006 was the second warmest October in the last 150 years for the whole of Switzerland.
      • November 2006: it was the warmest autumn in Switzerland ever recorded.
      • January 2007 was the warmest beginning of year since the start of measurements
      • In the south of Switzerland, the temperatures reached up to 24 degrees Celsius on the 18th of January 2007 (beating the record of 13th of January 1920 with 17.3 degrees Celsius)!
    • colder:
      • August 2006 was the coldest August in the last 26 years for the whole of Switzerland (mostly colder than january 07).

so we have nearly 6 months back to back with extreme values.

  • the 10 warmest years since temperature measurements began 140 years ago were all after 1983
  • it would appear naive to disregard the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions (increase of approx. 16% in 50 years) on the climate system; especially if one considers the importance of path dependence (random fluctuations being enhanced) in the evolution of complex systems and the possibility of lock-in mechanisms reducing the possible future states of the system
  • i do not have training in climate science, i.e., my personal opinions aren't very relevant; this is why it is so important to have scientific communities; not to say that consensus proves anything, but it would be a gross mistake and arrogant to ignore the people who have professional training in their field, the people who engineer and set up experiments, who interpret the data and the uncertainties, and then develop and empirically try and validate models
  • the climate septics appear to be doing exactly the same things they are accusing the climate scientists of doing: the great global warming swindle (e.g., distorting the data, leaving one of the main scientist feeling "completely misrepresented", ...)
  • i find it comforting that many young people take the threat of a changing climate seriously, as they are the ones who will have to deal with it
  • finally, i find your take on the whole issue to be also somewhat "religious" and fanatic

i really don't expect you to find any of this relevant or true, but it felt good writing it:-)

all the best,


-- Apr 4, 2007


Global warming arrives to Versoix, Switzerland - March 23, 2007

Global warming arrives to Versoix, Switzerland


jbg said...

press review for switzerland



-- Apr 3, 2007


Protests against climate change - December 03, 2005

Protests against climate change

"Have you ever attended a protest against Newton's gravitational law? A protest against Maxwell's equations? Or a protest against another basic law of Nature? If you have not, you have a great opportunity. Today, the green activists organize worldwide protests against one of these natural laws, namely against the climate change. [...]"


jbg said...

"Global warming is shorthand for 'climate change', and the term is correct if you realize that it's referring to the average temperature of the Earth over the years; not to the temperatures at particular times and places."

Taken from usatoday.com

"Pattern of changes in ocean temperatures almost perfectly match simulations of human effects on regional climate, ruling out natural causes"; New Scientist Magazine, 11 June 2005, Issue 2503

From the article:
"The evidence is so strong that it should put an end to any debate about whether humanity is causing global warming," says Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California.

Taken from newscientist.com

"White House report says people cause global warming"; NewScientist.com, 13:10 27 August 2004

From the article:
"People are responsible for the spike in global warming in the last 30 years, says a new US government report. The verdict, long accepted by most scientists, has encountered resistance from the Bush administration in the past, prompting experts to question if the president will now enact policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions."

"Well over 98% of scientists competent in this area would agree with that [human activity as cause of global warming]." says Thomas Graedel, an industrial ecologist at Yale University.

Taken from: newscientist.com

hey lubos, if the bush administration can get it, so can you...

best regards,


-- Dec 22, 2005


lumo said...

Dear jbg,

be sure that my thinking is independent from the Bush administration, and if someone in the Bush administration can be fooled by some idiocy, it does not yet mean that it will also fool me. ;-)

All the best

-- Dec 22, 2005


jbg said...

i gathered that much but couldn't resist the sarcasm;-)

but i find it strange, that you wouldn't agree with the empirical data and the experts in the field.



-- Dec 22, 2005


jbg said...

...after all, if we like to think of ourselves as an enlightened civilization and want to act in a collective intelligent manner with respect to the future, it is my opinion, that one should take the slightest possibility that our modern way of life could be affecting the global dynamical processes on our earth very seriously.

the approach of waiting for 100% proof could maybe take too long. and if you talk to people in the insurance and re-insurance business, i.e., the only ones interested in the issue from an economical and not ideological point of view - after all, they'll have to pay - the outlook is gloomy and is getting more so with a growing body of evidence...



-- Dec 22, 2005


Powered by

Powered by Typo3
Powered by Kubuntu

This site should conform to the following standards: