Nobel Prize in Physics goes South

“Unlike many Nobel-worthy accomplishments that are based on hard data or newly known processes, this one was simply a guess.” Anthony Watts

Nobel Prize in Physics awarded for making ‘guess’ about climate

Anthony Watts, American Thinker, October 8, 2021

This past week, Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselmann, and Giorgio Parisi were awarded the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics for research that led to early computer models of the Earth’s climate. On the face of it, some people might think this is a grand achievement. In reality, unlike many Nobel-worthy accomplishments that are based on hard data or newly known processes, this one was simply a guess. Incredibly, we still don’t have an answer, more than 60 years later.

As the BBC reports,

“It is incredibly difficult to predict the long-term behaviour of complex physical systems such as the climate. Computer models that anticipate how it will respond to rising greenhouse gas emissions have therefore been crucial for understanding global warming as a planetary emergency.”

The Associated Press reported on Manabe’s work, saying, “…other climate scientists called his 1967 paper with the late Richard Wetherald “the most influential climate paper ever.” Manabe’s Princeton colleague, Tom Delworth, called Manabe “the Michael Jordan of climate.”

CNN reported, “Manabe… harnessed the calculating power of early computers and applied it to climate. In the late 1960s, his climate circulation model was on a computer that occupied a whole room and only had half a megabyte of memory. After hundreds of hours of testing, the model showed that carbon dioxide had a clear impact — when the level of carbon dioxide doubled, global temperature increased by over 2°C.”

Glowing reviews, crude early calculations, and wild claims of a “planetary emergency” aside, the bottom line is climate models then and now still don’t provide a certain answer as to how much warming will occur, because scientists still haven’t been able to nail down the single most important variable known as “climate sensitivity.”

As referenced in Climate at a Glance: Climate Sensitivity, for decades, scientists have debated the effect of climate sensitivity, due to the uncertain nature of climate feedback in various models.

Declaring future predictions of global warming “settled science” requires a fairly precise calculation of future temperatures. However, since climate sensitivity was first identified more than 40 years ago, scientists and climate models have produced a very broad range of potential future temperature patterns. Estimates in peer-reviewed studies range from 0.8°C warming to almost 6.0°C warming by 2100.

Such a large range of uncertainty means climate model temperature projections remain dubious, at best. This means that no matter if your climate model is a crude rendition running on an ancient computer, or a new supercomputer that can perform billions of calculations per second if you don’t have the actual value of climate sensitivity to use in the equations, your end result will always be a guess.

If climate scientists don’t understand the Earth’s atmosphere well enough to nail down a true climate sensitivity estimate for increased carbon dioxide emissions, how can we trust climate model projections of future warming that rely on such an uncertain value?

And that’s what we have — an unanswered guess that was given a Nobel Prize. Physicist Lubos Motls didn’t mince words when he wrote of the award on his website:

“But even if the two men deserved such an award, which they don’t, it is absolutely unforgivable how the prize was justified. It was justified by buzzwords (I especially mean the nonsensical superstitious phrase “global warming”) that are almost identical like those in the justification of the Nobel Prize in Peace for pure scammers such as Al Gore. In this way, the Nobel Prize has committed suicide and I don’t want to hear about it again. The political motivation of this prize is 100% obvious.”

“Award-winning” science deserves something better than guesses that stem from political motivations. We deserve better because politicians are using these guesses to justify upending our way of life, returning us to the dark ages of energy poverty.

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute.

Image: PxFuel

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

If you would like to comment on this or any other American Thinker article or post, we invite you to visit the American Thinker Forum at MeWe. There, you can converse with other American Thinker readers and comment freely (subject to MeWe’s terms of use). The Forum will be fully populated and ready for comments by midday (Eastern time) each day.

The 1619 Hoax

“Mary Grabar has authored a serious, mature book that should be in every American household and classroom.” Matthew G. Anderson

“Ms. Grabar doesn’t merely ‘debunk’ the 1619 Project, she devastates it.” Ibid

Debunking the 1619 Project

By Matthew G. Andersson, American Thinker, October 5, 2021

Debunking the 1619 Project

by Mary Grabar

Regnery History (2021)

Mary Grabar has authored a serious, mature book that should be in every American household and classroom.  Its message is so critical to understand that it might usefully serve as required reading in a test and qualification for American citizenship. There were a couple of sections I found demandingly granular, but they stem from her determination to get the story re-assembled factually, as much historical detail was falsified or ignored by the 1619 project members.

Ms. Grabar “debunks,” either directly or by implication, at least four primary objects:

  • the asserted significance of the date 1619;
  • the asserted unique culpability of Jefferson and other Founders in American slave-labor perpetuation;
  • the assertion of unique colonial and early Republic promotion of slave markets and slave trading and;
  • the asserted educational value of such historical revisionism that also rests on a modern policy narrative of unresolved racial discrimination and harm in legal and financial dimensions. 

Ms. Grabar doesn’t merely “debunk” the 1619 Project, she devastates it, by a relentless, professional marshaling of facts and data, and with thoughtful argumentation, choice sourcing, and careful footnotes.  For its depth in historical research, the book reads very smoothly. I found it a “page-turner” as the case she makes unfolds with surprise, pleasure, and wisdom, concerning not only the facts of colonial slavery, but its larger context in American history, and indeed in a larger context still, of world history. 

It is fearless in standing up for the integrity of fact, and in challenging the coercive moralism of her object.  It is the work of someone who knows America in its strength and complexity, and even by her own experiences of coming to this country.  She effectively brings the maturity and wisdom of a wise mother correcting aberrant children.  It is not in that regard patronizing or belittling; it merely sets the record straight.

But this is also not merely an ideological riposte to the 1619 program; it is the work of a mature scholar who knows what it means to handle, with respect and professionalism, the responsibility of presenting to a large public audience (and potentially to millions of young students) a vital portrayal of their country so that emotionally and psychologically, they are able to better establish an accurate historical baseline from which to reason and judge. Top Articles By American Thinker

Let’s Go Brandon to you, too

For example, her probing into Thomas Jefferson’s psychology, and his careful, strategic planning in ways that would first emancipate the American mind, is riveting to read and makes me admire Jefferson even more (with his kind of leadership, one has to wonder if the Civil War could have been avoided altogether).  Ms. Grabar is able to discern and communicate Jefferson’s character —  along with President Lincoln’s — because she brings a more experienced mind to the fuller contours of his concerns and responsibilities as, not merely a “radical abolitionist,” but as a statesman and leader whose dedication to his country’s stability and gradual transformation, along the ethical and moral lines he clearly delineated and championed, would evolve in such a way that slavery of all kinds would finally extinguish itself through a combination of persuasion, incentives, and learning. Emancipation itself would come forth organically and from a “bottom-up” social dynamic, rather than a contentious top-down recklessness (and what he and others feared) that could result in an overtly violent, or perhaps worse, passive-aggressive resistance and undermining, that could rupture the country, or work to retard its necessary competitive economic development and stability.

But more, both Jefferson and Lincoln had a pragmatic, if “Whig” regard for what could happen after emancipation: how would slaves and indentured servants adapt to employment, entrepreneurship, education, and citizenship?  And more, how could a productive relationship among the entirety of society be advanced, one that works toward a single unified country?

Jefferson had a true globalist perspective, from his knowledge of, or association with, other statesmen, writers, and intellectuals.  After considering the evidence that Ms. Grabar presents, the nature of slavery is elevated to its proper characterization and context, not merely as an “American” practice, but a deeply embedded, worldwide human tradition: indeed, the human race has consisted more of the enslaved than the free.  Bondage, servitude, oppression, and slavery nearly defined the inherent nature of human societies. 

Jefferson, especially, sought not only to advocate for a new country that finally broke free of those cultural practices, but that helped establish the model for slavery’s systematic and institutional eradication — and for a durability, in constitutional and legal standards, against its ability to re-emerge.  As Gordon Wood states, “The Revolution created the first antislavery movement in the history of the world.”

But that doesn’t stop the 1619 syndicate and its objectives; facts don’t stand in its way.  Indeed, facts are transformed, re-shaped, invented, or ignored.  And this not only demands an accounting necessary for the integrity of history, and for the responsibility and credibility demanded of scholars and teachers of historical narrative, but also against the hidden objectives of the entire 1619 agenda.  It ultimately has no regard for truth, history, the American project, or especially the minds of our youth.  It is a program of mere political opportunism that seeks to pit one group against another. But it doesn’t do so to “set the record straight,” or stand up for oppression: it seeks itself to oppress

Mary Grabar’s book will help you understand the 1619 problem in its full flowering and encourage your appreciation of the traditions and reasons for standing tall and proud as an American, with an American mind; one that is aware of the full spectrum of its history, and its promise.

Matthew G. Andersson is a former technology CEO, and author.  He attended the University of Texas at Austin, Yale University, and the University of Chicago. He is the author of the upcoming book “Legally Blind: How Ideology Has Captured the Law School, the Judiciary, and the Constitution,” and has written regularly in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times. 

More Secular, Less Free

“Here is something any honest person must acknowledge: As America has become more secular, it has become less free.” Dennis Prager

Editor’s Note: While today’s deists and atheists will pronounce Dennis Prager “a nut” I believe the historical evidence is on his side. For those interested in an in-depth study of the matter I would begin with David Barton’s The Founders’ Bible. Nearly all our founding fathers took Genesis 1: 1 literally. Even one of the least “religious” founders-Thomas Paine­had to admit, “How, then, is it that when we study the works of God in creation we stop short and do not think of God? … The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism.” The Founders’ Bible, p. 4. After pondering over 2100 pages of The Founders’ Bible let me suggest a read of a work that compares the Secular Humanist worldview with the Christian worldview. Understanding The Times: A Survey of Competing Worldviews by Jeff
Myers and David A. Noebel. Even Paul Kurtz admitted that we treated his Secular Humanist worldview fairly and openly. Yet, as Dennis Prager argues, America and Western Civilization has decided to try John Dewey over the Apostle Paul. This will not end pretty!

As America Has Become More Secular, It Has Become Less Free

Why freedom in America is threatened as never before.

Dennis Prager,, Sep 23, 2021

Here is something any honest person must acknowledge: As America has become more secular, it has become less free.

Individuals can differ as to whether these two facts are correlated, but no honest person can deny they are facts.

It seems to me indisputable that they are correlated. To deny this, one would have to argue that it is merely coincidental that free speech, the greatest of all freedoms, is more seriously threatened than at any time in American history while a smaller-than-ever percentage of Americans believe in God or regularly attend church.

The United States became the freest country in the world, the sweet land of liberty, the recipient of the Statue of Liberty, the country whose flag freedom fighters around the world have often waved. This freedom was rooted in the deeply religious nature of its founding ideals. America was founded by God-centered individuals to be a God-centered country. The claims that America’s founders were mostly deists and that America was founded to be a godless secular society are not true.

Some of the Founders were not orthodox Christians, i.e., they did not believe in the Christian Trinity or in the divinity of Christ. But none of them were deists (with the possible exception of Jefferson). Deists believed in a creator God who was not only uninvolved with his creations, but he also did not even know them, let alone care about them. After creating the world, the deists’ God abandoned it. The deists’ God was Aristotle’s “unmoved mover.”

Every major Founder (again, with the possible exception of Jefferson) believed in the God of the Bible who heard prayer, acted in history, judged people in the hereafter, demanded ethical behavior, and without Whom morality did not objectively exist. Most importantly, they all believed that in order for a functioning democratic republic not to descend into tyranny, it was necessary to link freedom with God.

Whatever Jefferson’s view of God was, he was as influenced by the Bible as every other Founder. He and Benjamin Franklin proposed that the great seal of the United States depict Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt: Moses raising his rod to divide the sea; Pharaoh, in his chariot, overwhelmed by the waters; and the divine pillar of fire that led the Israelites by night. The seal’s proposed motto: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” Jefferson and Franklin believed that freedom and obedience to God were synonymous. No God, no freedom.

The Founders linked freedom inextricably to God. That is why the inscription on the Liberty Bell is from the Bible: “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants thereof.” The verse comes from Leviticus, the third book of the Bible. The Founders knew their Bible. The present adult generation of Americans is more ignorant of the Bible than any in American history. And most young people know even less. I suspect that most students at Harvard could not identify Leviticus, let alone cite any of its verses.

The bell was named “the Liberty Bell” by the abolitionists. Their opposition to slavery was based entirely on the Bible. Their motivating principle, “All men are created equal,” came from the Bible. They did not get it from the ancient Greeks, who would have scoffed at such a notion.

Freedom permeates the Old Testament: The Bible begins with the story of Adam and Eve, a story about man’s assertion of his God-given freedom … freedom even to disobey God. The primary story of the Old Testament is the Exodus, a story about God liberating slaves.

For the Founders, the most obvious reason freedom was dependent on faith in God was that only if God is regarded as the source of freedom could men not rightfully take it away. If men are the source of the freedom, men can rightfully retract it. This is precisely what is happening today. Freedom is being destroyed primarily by those who scorn the idea that freedom comes from God.

The rule that the end of religion means the end of freedom does not mean that secularism would not be a welcome replacement for totalitarian theocracies such as Iran. But eventually that, too — a secular Iran — would lead to tyranny. Wherever God is delinked from freedom, freedom ultimately withers. When Christianity died in Europe, it was replaced by fascism, Nazism and communism.

Freedom is central to the Bible. This is especially apparent in America, which until now has linked its unparalleled commitment to freedom to God and the Bible. But freedom is peripheral to leftism. That is why freedom in America is threatened as never before: The foundations upon which freedom rests — God, the Bible, Judeo-Christian values — are threatened as never before.

Every American coin bears two inscriptions: “In God We Trust” and “Liberty.” Every generation of Americans prior to the 1960s understood why. Most Americans today, including secular conservatives, do not.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist.