Can Nobel Prize Winners Be Complete Morons?

Several Nobel Prize winners have stated that they believe CO2 is the control knob for Earth’s temperature.

This is an amazing theory, given that the historical record shows that the Earth makes sharp swings in temperature, while CO2 continues to trend in the opposite direction.

IceCores1 (1)

110,000 years ago CO2 (red) was rapidly dropping while temperature (blue) was sharply rising. This went on for thousands of years. Only a complete flaming moron could believe that CO2 is the control knob. Temperature changes first, and then CO2 follows much later. Ice cores show that temperature is the control knob for CO2, not the other way around.

ScreenHunter_5878 Jan. 09 01.08

So the answer is – yes, Nobel Prize winners can be complete morons.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Can Nobel Prize Winners Be Complete Morons?

  1. Marsh says:

    We know of a particular Prize Moran , whom is less than Noble ; despite him winning one !
    The connection of AGW with the Nobel Prize ; has been an explosive hit on its reputation .

    • rah says:

      I mean really. We’re talking about an organization that gave Yasser Arafat, a known terrorist that once presided over skinning alive a human being and whom bilked “his people” out of billions a peace prize? Let alone the likes of Gore and Obama! Sad to say the Nobel prizes became a bad joke some time ago. It is sad that they have so sullied an award that so many others have and almost certainly will receive that merit the recognition.

  2. mtminer says:

    The graph appears to show that temperature controls the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rather than the reverse.

  3. rah says:

    Was the warming we experienced in the 90’s a result of what appears to be a normal lag of CO2 rise after temperature rise by 700 to 800 years? Thinking the MWP 950 to 1100. Or did it have more to do with Solar activity?

      • ArndB says:

        A well-made statement, but maybe even more than cycles!
        AT WUWT vukcevic, ( January 9, 2015 at 7:24 am ), said: “Ergo: sun appear to be the ultimate driver, but the exact processes are not clearly defined.”, my reply:
        __ArndB, (January 9, 2015 at 7:45 am ), The “exact processes”, concerning the intake of heat from the sun, and the release of heat into the atmosphere is steered and controlled by the oceans. The ocean is the ultimate driver of climate! ___Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519): “Water is the driver of nature“, or
        ___“In the time-scale range from a few weeks to thousand years, the dynamics of climate is strongly controlled by the oceans.”, Klaus Hasselmann, 1990, “Ocean Circulation and Climate Change”, Tellus. (SSN 0937-1060), p. 1-37 (3).

        • emsnews says:

          Yes, the ultimate and major #1 driver of climate is the sun.

          The oceans are the bell weather part: they heat up slowly and cool slowly. This doesn’t stop the very sudden Interglacials that have interrupted the Ice Age we are in. Our ‘happy times’ right now is very, very temporary and no, it won’t be the oceans that will resume the Ice Age conditions that are normal.

        • ArndB says:

          Reply to : emsnews says: January 9, 2015 at 5:15 pm
          _The impact of sea water during night is immense, see for example one week at a Baltic Sea station in April:
          __If considering the reasons for ice ages, one should not ignore that the oceans hold 1000 times more water than the atmosphere by an average temperature of mere +4°C.
          __ The claim “…conditions that are normal.” is not very helpful as expressed by Andrew A. Lacis, (NYT,17. Feb.2010):
          “We have come to understand that nothing happens in this world expect as allowed by the laws of physics. What this means is that for every physical action there is going to be a well-defined cause, and a well-defined effect.” More at:

  4. gator69 says:

    We know the reverse is true, so yes.

  5. Steve Case says:

    Ever since Yasser Arafat received his prize in 1994 I haven’t put much stock in who gets them.

  6. davidswuk says:

    Because only morons can dispute the B.Obvious!

  7. Old Goat says:

    Can Nobel Prize Winners Be Complete Morons?

    In most cases, it’s a prerequisite.

  8. omanuel says:

    They are not morons, only greedy prostitutes of science.

    Since the end of WWII, Nobel Prizes have been given to those who would “bend” scientific facts to fit the agenda of frightened world leaders trying to take totalitarian control of the world to save themselves from nuclear annihilation by hiding the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms, some planets, stars and galaxies:

    Neutron Repulsion Above 150 amu

    PS – A new study suggests the human lifespan is influenced by solar surface activity from the Sun’s core at birth:

  9. philjourdan says:

    I worked with a network engineer who was almost without peer! He was my mentor in my early career. Smartest engineer I ever knew. And he was totally clueless about economics!

    Everyone is a moron in some subject or another.

  10. Correct! The reason why CO2 and the temperature proxy in the ice core record are so closely correlated is that as the oceans warm, they RELEASE CO2 (which is less soluble in warm water than in cold), and that is why the CO2 curve slightly lags the temperature proxy. When the oceans cool again, they ABSORB CO2, but they do so more slowly because the gas is well mixed in the atmosphere, and it takes longer for the oceans to reabsorb it. Perfectly logical and perfectly obvious if your mind isn’t numbed by greenhouse warming rubbish.

    • Gail Combs says:

      We keep repeating that – Henry’s law (1803) – and the ClimAstrologists keep saying La, La, La we can’t hear you….

      The newest idea I saw floated was the Milankovitch cycle (sun) starts the thaw into an interglacial but it is the CO2 that cause the thaw to continue.


      The Holocene is 11,700 years so the earth came out of Ice age when the insolation was 522.5 Wm−2 (12,000 years ago) The depth of the last ice age was 464 Wm−2 (23,000 years ago) so the insolation changed 58.5Wm−2 (the 60°N June insolation)

      The ClimAstrologists are saying that solar insolation change is going to be trumped by CO2 forcing when the entire CO2 forcing is 32 to 44 W m–2 [cf., Reid, 1997]. and all but 5 to 6 W m–2 of that forcing occurs in the first 200 ppm CO2 (modtran) A CO2 concentration where plants barely survive.

      Some how 60 W m–2 trumps 6 W m–2 in my book and that is using THEIR numbers!
      Insolation from

      • Olaf Koenders says:

        Gail – a bit OT but you might be able to help me with this:

        Recently there have been a heap of “documentaries” on Earth’s history bluntly stating that there was sudden volcanic activity during the Permian that caused volumes of CO2 to overheat the atmosphere, causing the Permian extinction. Also, a rash of volcanism and resulting CO2 that caused the planet to exit snowball Earth.

        But what we actually observe following major eruptions is cooling (Laki, Tambora, Cosiguina, Krakatoa, El Chichon, Pinatubo So what’s the real truth? My money’s on these recent “documentaries” telling porkies.

        It’s my thinking that Milankovitch Cycles ended snowball Earth, but the Permian extinction is less clear. We know about the logarithmic scale of CO2 v temp, so that can’t be it.

        • stpaulchuck says:

          there are some solid papers pointing to cosmic ray bursts from super novae that could easily wipe out most life on Earth if we got hit. They even have a suspect remnant.

      • Gail, I don’t think that either greenhouse theory or Milankovitch theory is very helpful in unraveling the mystery of climate change. What is far more relevant is volcanoes. In the geologic record, warming episodes consistently follow prolonged periods of continuous basaltic volcanism. Basaltic eruptions are quiet, and they emit a lot of chlorine (as HCl), which depletes ozone, letting in more solar ultraviolet-B radiation, which is absorbed by the oceans, causing global warming. The Holocene transition 11,700 years ago happened during such a prolonged episode of basaltic volcanism in Iceland, and it marked the end of the last ice age. Cooling episodes, on the other hand, consistently follow prolonged periods of frequent andesitic volcanism. These also emit HCl, which depletes ozone, but unlike basaltic eruptions, andesitic eruptions are explosive, and they project a lot of dust and SO2 into the stratosphere. The SO2 quickly oxidizes and combines with water, forming sulfuric acid aerosols. These, together with the dust, increase Earth’s albedo and reflect away more solar irradiance, producing a cooling effect which strongly overrides the warming effect of ozone depletion. In a nutshell, volcanism and its type and timing is Earth’s thermostat. The Milankovitch rhythms are coordinated with warming and cooling episodes because they do exert enough of a gravitational effect on Earth to trigger tectonic plate motions, and tectonic plate motion is what gives rise to both kinds of volcanism: basaltic at oceanic spreading ridges and andesitic over subduction zones. So, there you have it. Pretty neat, eh?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Certainly interesting.

          Climate does not have one ‘Control Knob’ from what I can see. You can see that in the solar insolation at glacial inceptions from the paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? I extracted the 21 June solar insolation @ 65◦ N for several glacial inceptions:

          Current values are insolation = 479 W m−2
          (Marine Isotope Stage 11 interglacial)
          MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
          MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
          MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
          MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
          MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2,

          the NOAA data @ 60◦ N (It keeps changing slightly)
          depth of the last ice age – around 463 W m−2
          NOW (modern Warm Period) 476Wm-2

          A SWAG is the Milancovitch cycle brings the earth to a ‘boundary condition’ and then other factors kick the earth into glaciation or an interglacial. Volcanoes, large meteor impacts, ocean, albedo….

          Interesting papers on Volcanoes:
          Study of Dust in Ice Cores Shows Volcanic Eruptions Interfere with the Effect of Sunspots on Global Climate

          Papers on Sun / dust correlations and volcanic interference

          Although dust can also be from dry/dusty no rain conditions

  11. SMS says:

    Maybe it was how the question was phrased. If you ask a scientist whether they believe the world will warm due to increasing CO2 but do not quantify the amount; they will probably feel obligated to say yes. Even if the amount of warming were TSTM, they would truthfully have to answer YES.

    But if you were to ask the same scientists whether CO2 were to cause Catastrophic AGW, they would probably answer NO.

    There is a conspiracy by the alarmists to do anything possible to continue the hype. If phrasing a question so that it garners an answer that the uninformed are influenced by, they have won a small battle through deceit.

    And when the CO2 meme draws out to a point where it is no longer the catastrophe once envisioned by the alarmists but only a minor, but welcome, slight warming; the progressives, greenies, communists, leftists, will tell us they were right all along. They will then run off to save the planet from the next imagined calamity, and we will fight the same fight again.

  12. I think a better descriptor for such people would be “closed-minded fanatics.” I am a progressive, a greenie, a socialist, and a leftie, and I deeply resemble your prejudiced, closed-minded, fanatical remark (er…, resent, that is).

    • You are a fascinating specimem. What makes you an exception to the rule?

      And what did these “closed-minded fanatics” say when you outed yourself?

    • Gail Combs says:


      David is not the only progressive, greenie, socialist, and leftie, who thinks CAGW is a crock. Richard S Courtney has been loudly fighting against CAGW for years.

      There are ‘lefties’ and then there are the sociopathic fanatics whose goal is a totalitarian regime with many of us dead and them in control of all the goodies and all the people. North Korea’s Kim Jong-un is a classic example.

      We have to remember not to fall for the let’s you and he fight red herring the MSM and the elite used to keep us occupied. Richard had a good comment on socialism HERE.

      It is worth reading the entire discussion.
      As I said there, ” labels are intentionally used by the thieving manipulators and their puppets to divide men of good will so a bit of clarification is in order.”

      Oh, and in one thread Richard the socialist said he supports ‘capitalism’ …..

      • Gail, I think I understand the point you’re making. Please add this to your considerations:

        1. I know Richard’s views very well. The debates with him can get fascinating, as I’m sure you know. I’ve had quite a few.
        2. I’ve been in this fight since my teens; I’d like to think I no longer fall for red herrings.
        3. I’ve personally experienced the Left in several countries on three continents; I think I know them.
        4. I remember the 2013 discussion you’ve linked; I will re-read it again to see if I’d missed anything.
        5. I still think David is a fascinating fellow and that he is an exception to the rule.
        6. The leftist set is huge and David is not the only exception.
        7. You juxtapose two labels: ‘lefties’ and ‘sociopathic fanatics’ in your argument.
        8. You concurrently deride the use of labels in the same argument.

        So where do we go from here? I know there is a Babylonian confusion in our language. The “Left” is creating this chaos and it’s using it very skillfully but “labels” are “words”. If we no longer agree on the meaning of labels, i.e. words, we’ve lost our language. Without it we are just cattle.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Colorado says,

          “…So where do we go from here? I know there is a Babylonian confusion in our language. The “Left” is creating this chaos and it’s using it very skillfully but “labels” are “words”. If we no longer agree on the meaning of labels, i.e. words, we’ve lost our language. Without it we are just cattle.”

          I will certainly agree that the Fabians are using language as a weapon. (And I do mean the Fabians) I have not traveled as much as a lot of you guys but I did live for years in the Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts. I still remember vividly taking a senior high school girl out on a drive in my carriage which left lots of time for talking.

          She said “I know Capitalism is Evil, but I really don’t like socialism”

          Think about that for a minute. I am quite sure the woman probably thinks of herself as a ‘socialist’ although I have hopes she might have climbed out of the box the MA public schools stuffed her into. I certainly did my best to give her a boost out.

          If you have heard nothing but how evil ‘capitalism’ is all your life you are stuck in that mental ‘box’ Very very few people are capable of climbing out of that box and realizing there is a lot more to the world than what they were told.

          Unfortunately that has been the Fabians greatest weapon. Get them young. Brain wash them. Trap them in a box that allows no real thought.

          Realizing this, I try to look beyond the self-labels and I hope to see a thinking individual and not someone who runs completely on ‘feelings’ with the brain permanently disengaged. (A Fabian serf.)

          David and Richard strike me as thinking individuals.

        • That’s the mystery. What are they thinking?

        • philjourdan says:

          Suggestion – do a truth in advertising. Tell her to ignore capitalism and just concentrate on free trade. Colorado is correct. Capitalism is a construct of socialists. The actual philosophy is free trade.

        • philjourdan says:

          Richard is a fanatic. Whether he is sociopathic or not remains to be seen. He bristles – no he gets rabid – at even the inkling you might be dissing socialism. Reporting history is no shield. He attacks without reason or intelligence when confronted by history. It is for that reason I no longer read his comments.

      • Olaf Koenders says:

        “..the sociopathic fanatics whose goal is a totalitarian regime with many of us dead and them in control of all the goodies and all the people.”

        Ah. So you’ve met my ex-GF.. 🙂

    • SMS says:

      David, I think you know of whom I was speaking about, but instead of directing your attention to the major thought of my post, you directed your comment to a sentence you had to twist into an issue. What do you have to say about the first several paragraphs? As for progressives, greenies, communists and lefties; I do have a problem with the direction they want to take me and this country. I, however, do not find people who identify with the Tea Party as being closed-minded fanatics. You probably do.

    • MrX says:

      I was a hard core liberal. Believed in AGW 100%. Someone asked me to prove it. Didn’t need to be overwhelming proof. And that someone said I didn’t even need to show the results to them. Just be honest about what you (ie. I) find. I looked at the data and the first thing that hit me was how horrible it was. Second thing that hit me is that it’s very difficult to find untampered data. Last thing that hit me was that the data I could get my hands on actually showed the opposite of AGW.

      If they were wrong about AGW, I started asking myself what else did I believe that was a load of crap. Ends up everything I thought I knew was wrong. Now I can’t stand liberalism and all its lies and how liberals keep pointing the fingers at others for what they are doing themselves.

  13. JamesG says:

    Time and time again I have asked scientists who make the bold claim about CO2 being a lagged heating amplifier in the ice-age cycles to then explain the cooling cycle and they all just ignore the question. Obviously it requires a massive carbon sink to appear out of nowhere because CO2 cannot operate as a coolant otherwise. They have only ever had half a hypothesis! And yes this is so blindingly obvious that I despair of the education system.

  14. darrylb says:

    Consider a person with supreme qualities worthy of what the Nobel Prize is supposed to be–
    Freeman Dyson. The divergence of what should be and what is widens in the plane of Nobel recipients in both directions from the norm.

  15. AndyG55 says:

    The real teller is that when CO2 is at its peak..
    it is UNABLE to maintain the warmer temperatures.

    • Olaf Koenders says:

      Exactly. There’s no way the planet can have a runaway greenhouse without the Sun beginning to fuse Helium IMHO.

  16. stpaulchuck says:

    yes. I give you Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. QED.

  17. gallopingcamel says:

    stpaulchuck, January 10, 2015 at 4:18 am
    “yes. I give you Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. QED.”

    Jimmy Carter must love Barack Obama. Now there is nobody who thinks that Jimmy is the worst president since WWII.

  18. Tx for the references, Gail. I look forward to absorbing them. You might like to spend some quality time with

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s