WaPo's Take on Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Says There's 'No Climate Crisis' Is Something Else

The Washington Post could be counted on to try and protect the preferred narrative when it comes to climate change being the biggest threat the world faces (according to President Biden): 

Wash Post: John Clauser won a Nobel Prize. Then he started denying climate change. - The Washington Post pic.twitter.com/1HurLggBOb

— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) November 16, 2023

Check out one of the "experts" the Post quoted in an attempt to refute Clauson:

Climate hoax meltdown:

WaPo attacks 2022 Nobel physics prize winner John Clauser for saying there is no climate crisis.

Real funny:

WaPo @maxinejoselow quotes fake Nobelist and hokey stick inventor @MichaelEMann (multiple false claims of being a Nobel winner) as calling… pic.twitter.com/8srIJbVT7t

— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) November 16, 2023

Aside from quoting debunked "experts" on the subject, here's what the WaPo story's author seemed to think is relevant information when it comes to the attempt to discredit Clauser:

The event showcased Clauser’s remarkable shift 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, 80, who has a booming voice and white hair he often leaves uncombed, has brushed off these concerns. He says skepticism is a key part of the scientific process.

[...]

Clauser, who wore a gray blazer with black jeans and Teva sandals, appeared buoyant as he took the stage. He cycled through a PowerPoint presentation that began with the exclamation: “Great news! There is no climate crisis!”

How long will it be until the Post has an article blaming Clauser's "often left uncombed" hair on climate change? Also, the "top scientists" pushing climate change panic are probably alarmed by what Clauser said, but not for the reason they want everybody to believe. 

Recommended

LA Mayoral Candidate Raman Looks Like a Wet Noodle After CNN Journo Pushes Back on Pratt A.I. Ad Claims

Warren Squire

The story mentions "scientific consensus," and when the climate alarmists use the term "consensus" they're not making the point they think.

You might have seen the wise words of Michael Crichton before, but if you haven't read his takedown of the "scientific consensus" crowd (looking at you Al Gore, John Kerry, et al), I'll close with this:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

There was once a "consensus of scientists" agreeing many things were true that turned out to be false -- or vice-versa. 

The "consensus" approach is merely an attempt to try and keep anybody with a different opinion from speaking out, and anybody who does that is not motivated by truth and science.