The online German flagship daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) conducted an interview with Australian astrophysicist and Nobel Prize laureate Brian Schmidt, revealing that so far only 36 of 65 Nobel laureates attending the Lindau Nobel laureate conference have signed the so-called 2015 Mainau Declaration, a document urging world leaders to act quickly on climate change.
The FAZ interview bears the title: “The evidence that must not be distorted.”
In the interview conducted by Joachim Müller-Jung, Schmidt gives the impression that there is an almost universal consensus and certainty on the science, that the IPCC is 99% sure that humans have been responsible for the recent climate change.
When Schmidt is asked by the FAZ directly why he is so sure about the science, Schmidt says he relies on the models…”extremely complex models“, and adds that although they do not know whether things in the future will happen exactly as the IPCC says they will, Schmidt tells the FAZ “we can say that most of the model calculations lead to a serious change in the atmosphere that will be unacceptable. This change puts everything in doubt – it leads to perhaps the greatest crisis for mankind. […] I would say that we can be 99 percent certain that a dangerous and man-made climate change is taking place.”
Consensus? Only 56% signed
And it turns out that not many Nobel laureates are as sure as Schmidt. The FAZ asks why “just a bit over half” of the laureates attending the Lindau conference signed the document, i.e. only 35 of 66 Nobel laureates. Schmidt replies first by claiming that there is actually only one person who steadfastly refuses to sign (Ivar Giaever) and that:
Most of the others simply had to leave the conference earlier or had second thoughts about signing because it was beyond their expertise.”
When asked by the FAZ what would happen if it turned out they are all wrong, Schmidt answers: “Then I am the first to admit that I was wrong. But I am 99 percent sure that this will not happen.”
Here Schmidt may want to look at the comparison of the model projects and the real observed data (see IPCC chart above).
At the end Schmidt says that U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Royal Society President Paul Nurse played key roles in authoring the Mainau manifesto.
O/T life reporting from AfD party congress.
THE ONLY PARTY CONGRESS WHERE CURRENT PROBLEMS ARE ACTUALLY DEBATED.
https://jungefreiheit.de/politik/deutschland/2015/afd-beginnt-entscheidungsparteitag/
(CDU, SPD, Greens debate only minor distractions)
Make or break for the AfD – if Lucke wins, the AfD will become another SPD/CDU/FDP clone and avoid all important topics, another pan-European helper. Frauke Petry and Konrad Adam are the leaders of the rebel faction.
…through unknown sources Lucke’s organisation (“Weckruf 2015”,wake-up call 2015) picks up the tab for all party members supporting him, accomodation and travel expenses, estimated cost 300k EUR – about 150 EUR for est. 2000 supporters.
He’s losing nevertheless as it stands. His attempt to install a homosexual Muslim as party speaker was just thrown out.
Lucke represents the “Transatlantics”, a group that via the Warburg-founded club Atlantikbrücke also controls the CDU and with Özdemür has a bridgehead at the Greens. (yes THAT Warburg, funder of the Bolshevist revolution)
Petry sweeps the floor with Lucke and just holds her acceptance speech as party leader. The rebels have won.
It begins.
Hah. She does a “Keep your enemies closer” by suggesting to have the Transatlantic Starbatty as her substitute.
“When asked by the FAZ what would happen if it turned out they are all wrong, Schmidt answers: “Then I am the first to admit that I was wrong. But I am 99 percent sure that this will not happen.””
Run a double-blind-test: Tell half of the warmunist researchers that funding will no longer be given to proving Global Warming but to prove Global Cooling. Then test how many suddenly find out that they were wrong and want to be the first to admit it.
Your Test has nothing to do with “Run a double-blind-test:”.
I seriously wonder if you understand the stuff that you write and i am deeply shocked by your preference for a rather extremist right wing party.
“I seriously wonder if you understand the stuff that you write”
That’s just projection, little boy.
“That’s just projection, little boy.”
Why don t you simply explain to me, how you do a “double blind test” in your “test”.
And who will be the test group and who the control group.
I would love to hear details and learn something new!
That’s weird. You never reply to me when I point out your misconceptions about energy supply.
Maybe that’s just not as much of interest to you as general bickering is.
So, take 100 grant whores. (a.k.a. government scientists.)
Put them all in Skinner boxes so you can control their sensory input.
Let 50 of them receive stimuli that indicate that the Kommissars will give grant money to whores that prove Global Warming.
The other 50, the same with Global Cooling.
Let the experimenter not know which boxed grant whore got which stimulus.
Run the test.
Let a John Cook simulacron judge whether the output papers prove Global Warming, and a negated John Cook simulacron does the same for Global Cooling.
Examine the correlation of proofs for one or the other with the input stimulus.
Simple behavioral experimental setup.
“Put them all in Skinner boxes”
You are throwing out the next thing that you do not understand.
you do not understand universities, where you have to change working groups with papers in progress (good luck!).
you do not understand operant conditioning which is a long term experiment (especially in this context) and practically undoable here.
you also do not understand what a control group is (your experimental set up is complete garbage).
I will leave it at that, as this i completely off topic.
And you don’t seem to understand humor, little Boy.
Ah yeah, I forgot the control group. Sorry. So put another 100 grant whores in 100 more Skinner boxes and give them no stimuli at all (only free money) and see what they come up with.
And, yeah, of COURSE it’s a long term experiment, that’s the point of it, this way we have 20 years of peace while the grant whores sit in their boxes.
We are on a promising trail here.
We must set up the same kind of long term experiment with system journalists and the old political caste.
“you do not understand operant conditioning which is a long term experiment (especially in this context) and practically undoable here.”
But we must at least try, boy! Before we can save the world from highly likely doom we must test the grant whores, journalists and politicians for efficacy, don’t you think it would be wise to test these people’s conditioning before entrusting them with saving the world? Plus, it would ensure long term employment for shrinks!
“Extremist” ?
You have no clue.
You CAGW “consensus” warriors, however, are extremists.
Going to extreme lengths to take everyone’s money, and
Germany’s future (along with most of the rest of the world).
The three (formerly four) major parties are wafting a palaver
of distraction whilst doing little, if anything, to deal with REAL problems. And though their “colors” are different, their goals are
pretty much the same. The wall comes down, the East is supposed to become like the West is, but, alas, the West has become like the East was. Seems like it fell in the wrong direction.
And yes, I lived through it. And, now, I (and a ton of other hardworking citizens and residents of Germany), get to pay for it.
Time to get some real change. In the right direction.
More thinking and less bleating (and cheating, from “the team”)…
“for a rather extremist right wing party.”
Oh. I only now notice this funny bit from the little boy. Little boy, here’s a quote:
“Wir erleben es doch in vielen sachpolitischen Diskussionen: Kaum einer kann sich doch verknei-
fen, uns in der Zuwanderungsdiskussion sofort in eine rechte Ecke zu stellen.
Ich habe über die Fragen „Wie empfinden Menschen ihr persönliches Leben?“ und „Glauben sie,
dass es gerecht zugeht?“ gesprochen. Man muss natürlich darüber sprechen, dass es den
Missbrauch des Asylrechts gibt. Man muss natürlich sagen: Die Folge können nur Steuerung und
Begrenzung von Zuwanderung sein. Alles andere wird in der Bevölkerung keine Akzeptanz fin-
den. Deshalb kämpfen wir, unter anderem Peter Müller, Wolfgang Bosbach, für unseren Weg,
ganz hart und ganz entschieden.”
This is a quote from a speech by Angela Merkel, CDU, 2003.
(in http://www.kas.de/upload/ACDP/CDU/Protokolle_Parteitage/2003-12-01+02_Protokoll_17.Parteitag_Leipzig.pdf )
This was before the CDU became another SPD.
At that time I was voting CDU.
So, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Dirk: I’m not sure that that would be a double-blind test but I like your idea. Of course, for any who have been paying attention, we would likely be able to predict the results quite accurately (once the funding disappeared for the CAGW alarmists).
I like especially the part where we box’em all up.
To Pierre:
Interesting interview with an ex-Vegan who has gone rogue and researched everything! ( and written books about it)
“Vegan MYTHS Debunked with Lierre Keith || Louder With Crowder ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZSz4AmaMcs
You can see the full text under this link:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/weltrettung-im-namen-ihrer-exzellenz-13682781.html
The text is very good, but it is about more than climate change, so i can understand people who would not sign it.
The explanation given in the interview is very good as well:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/interview-mit-brian-schmidt-zum-klimamanifest-die-beweislage-darf-nicht-verdreht-werden-13684307-p3.html
Only one person did simply oppose the text. Others did not sign for time reasons or because the did not feel they knew enough over the topic (it also states that “nobels” get asked to sign a lot of things…).
Oh so it was so important that they couldn’t stay for a few more minutes, even to save the planet. Pathetic.
Sorry, but that declaration is one big W**kfest !!
Some of the rubbish quotes, (google translated)
“the continued imposition of human prosperity in the face of a rise in global would bring the average temperature of more than 2 ° C by itself”
Absolute BS !!!
“the continued imposition of human prosperity in the face of a rise in global would bring the average temperature of more than 2 ° C by itself”
B***S***.. again !!!
“We believe that the nations of the world use the opportunity of the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 and must take decisive action to limit future emissions worldwide.”
What monumental stupidity !!!!! The socialist agenda writ large !
“Already observed climate scientists, the negative impact of human activities.”
ALL negative impacts of the climate change scam have come from the imposition of AGW agenda items. Poor countries denied decent reliable energy supply, rich economies on the slide because of increases in energy costs.
Try proving that actual climate change, (which it hasn’t done significantly for many years), is causing any world problems.
Bet you can’t. !
Sorry, but this declaration is just another FARCE !!!!
“Absolute BS !!!”
Why do you not get the signatures of the other “nobels”?
should be easy, as you know that what their peers signed is “BS”….
Not S.O.B.
No-one who knows where that 2C was invented (Schellnhuber just made it up) would sign that load of garbage. Only those deep on the climate trough, therefore with zero integrity, would do so.
I wonder how many of those guys were “Nobel Peace laureates”, and how many actually knew anything about science and scientific proof. !
“the continued imposition of human prosperity ”
The very statement is all about the totalitarian socialist agenda of curtailing human development.
The second quote was meant to be….
“If we do not preclude control, so the Earth will not eventually be able to meet the needs of humanity and to meet our ever-increasing demand for food, water and energy. ”
Peak everything !!…….. whatever .
If all extremely complex models would have been correct, Schmidt’s certainty would have been 196 percent. There are more formulas for calculating his certainty, one by Festinger, in which the strength of a belief is negatively proportional to the amount of evidence.
He’s probably using “Common Core” maths. Two plus two equals five,
for large values of two…
Somebody should have Schmidt reconcile the model predictions with what Salby showed in London – that a sharp increase of emissions has not affected global temperature, not even the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06/27/dr-salby-co2-whether-man-made-or-not-does-not-drive-the-climate-system/
99% of priests profess 100% belief in God. They have to if they want to remain on the church payroll. That leaves out all the atheists and doubters, who must be destroyed in order to preserve the unity of church doctrine – and the priest’s stipends.
It’s the same with Climate scientists. They will also act like inquisitors and try to burn any doubters. Gimme that old-time religion!