Sabine Hossenfelder imagines that the lives of hundreds of millions of people depends on her opinion about CO2. I pointed out the absurdity of her position, so she blocked me.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Bob G on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Gordon Vigurs on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Ed on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Walter on Ellen Flees To The UK
- conrad ziefle on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- conrad ziefle on Ellen Flees To The UK
Ahh Ahh, Tony, some people cant stand the truth, you always now your hitting the right spot when they block you! Keep up the good work……!
She’s gone off the deep end recently, or has some climate related funding pending. She’s been doing YouTube videos which are heavily plugging the party line of late. (and her verbal diarrhea has nothing to do with actual science)
Also I’ve never been a part of the “twit” culture nor will I ever be, but I thought Elon was going to make it a bastion of free speech? OK, I get that a user can block someone from posting to their stream, but blocking them from reading that person’s posts??? Is that not the antithesis of free speech to disallow someone you don’t like from reading your posts? Was that designed to thwart debate, so you could not copy their words and refute or argue against them on your own thread?
This would explain a lot.
She was not into climate stuff until recently.
And then she threw out 3 climate videos in a very short period of times
(yesterday I congratulated her for her in her latest clickbaiting titles)
and her latest turning her into an absolute climate change believer .
That would be my read of the situation also … obviously an intelligent woman and she has discovered the riches to be had being a climate wh0re and generating clickbait for the legions of obsessive compulsive climate alarmists.
I very much enjoy Sabine’s videos when she’s not talking about climate related subjects. She very much has swallowed the party line in that area and has very little understanding about things like paleoclimate proxies and the limitations and manipulations of the instrumental climate record. I’ve put in some comments to try to awaken the nascent skeptic in her, but to no avail. There are plenty of “true believers” commenting who seem to want to reinforce her delusions.
It’s funny because she is very skeptical about particle physics, but seems to believe climate scientists are as pure as the driven snow. A classic example of the Gell-Mann effect.
On the bright side she does have something of a resemblance to E Jean Carroll which tells us just how much we can trust her.
This attitude on the part of leftists for the last several years is really amazing. They censor and silence anything that doesn’t jibe with their cult’s belief system. It’s thoroughly fascistic and totaltitarian. These are supposed to be the “tolerant” people, too, who allegedly welcome “diversity” in all things. And, of course, if you’re so sure you’re correct about climate change — or any of the other leftist beliefs — then you shouldn’t be afraid to debate. A child shuts down debate, not an adult.
If the climate change movement is legitimate, and is NOT dependent on fudging data and altering the temperature record, then you shouldn’t be afraid to debate. Period.
I’ve frequented her youtube channel, and I have no hard feelings against her. Perhaps I am minimizing any consequence of her analysis, for it does figure a trust of the ‘system’.
The system cannot be trusted…
“Sabine Hossenfelder imagines that the lives of hundreds of millions of people depends on her opinion about CO2.”
Don’t find that in her video. Instead, she says “I don’t think it matters much what I recommend”.
The video is about a scientific controversy on “(too) hot models”, and some arguments that a particular “hot” climate model might in fact be more correct than we thought what would be a problem.
Btw, she recently debunked the “runaway greenhouse gas effect on earth” in a video.
Still, no reason to block you, of course.
Sorry about all the nice comments regarding her; she simply looks f-ing crazy, and I think people dress and make themselves up to match their mindset. Of course, you can’t judge a book by its cover-except for about 100% of the time, I can tell a math book from a romance novel by the cover.
The realistic truth, that any honest scientists will have to admit even if they are climate change believers, is that even if CO2 is impacting the climate, it will be several hundred years before it becomes dangerous, and given our rate of knowledge growth, we would have solved it without damaging people’s lives and prosperity way before then.
they aren’t scientists, they mostly are religious fanatics.
Lubos Motl frequently criticized Hossenfelder on his blog The Reference Frame. Hossenfelder took Lubos to court in Europe and won a monetary award and some kind of restraining order against him. Shortly thereafter Lubos stopped blogging.
Lubos was my favorite science blogger. Losing his voice was a big loss for the real reality based community.
You wonder what her claim in court was. Having a different point of view? I trust no judges to have the sense to understand anything requiring rational thought. They strike me more like the “let them eat cake” aristocracy, or possibly good friends of Caligula.
I find the idea that scientific controversy can be settled by lawyers utter ludicrous.
DONT be too harsh she is pretty honest about global warming
Sabine Hossenfelder’s latest youtube video is “I wasn’t worried about climate change. Now I am.” It deals with something called “climate sensitivity”; apparently, it’s time to panic.
“Climate sensitivity is a number that roughly speaking tells us how fast climate change will get worse. A few years ago, after various software improvements, a bunch of climate models began having a much higher climate sensitivity than previously. Climate scientists have come up with reasons for why to ignore this. I think it’s a bad idea to ignore this. ”
On the other hand, when Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist who was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, was asked if he was worried about the climate he said “Maybe in about 5,000 years”.
I think I’ll believe Lindzen. I wonder if she will sue him too?
Maybe Sabine ought to learn that climate models yield unscientific results for an almost elementary statistical reason. The envelope of physical uncertainty is larger than the signal being sought because of water vapour. Thus, THIS ALARUM is unscientific, too.
This is the finding of eminent nuclear chemist at Stanford, Pat Frank. Tom Nelson podcast video interview of Prof Frank in a post at YT last year. (And you don’t have to be technically trained to see the problem — the resulting graph is that graphic.)
Just search on Pat Frank and Tom Nelson podcast.