A Keynote Address to Forget

“Hogwash.” “Totally unscientific.” “Pure bunk.” “Another figment of imagination.”


A Keynote Address to Forget

By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser

Dr Steven Chu – Official DOE portrait

On June 25, 2017, Dr. Steven Chu’s keynote address to the attendees of the 2017 Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting was presented by his colleague, Dr. W. Moerner. The written text of the speech can be downloaded from the References at my book website (Keynote-Steven-Chu-LiNo17-25-June-2017.pdf, file size 107703 bytes).

Of course, a keynote address to any gathering of importance is normally a speech that covers a wide ground, ranging from past findings to future (not necessarily futuristic) ideas, fields that ought to receive more research interest, potential developments and so forth.

The Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

This year’s meeting was attended by only 28 laureates while in the recent past their number was mostly greater than 60. Of those 28, only 11 were awarded a Nobel Prize in the last 10 years. One may rightly conclude that the annual Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings, held for 67 years now, appear to be in decline. From my perspective, there is a valid reason for the declining interest in these “expenses-paid-vacations” – especially for Nobel Prize Laureates. This became already quite apparent in 2015, when nearly half of the attending laureates did not sign that year’s final communique, the Mainau 2015 Declaration.

As I surmise, the reason for their disinterest or refusal to sign was that the meetings have become “hijacked” by political interests. And this year’s keynote address by Dr. Chu proves my point. His presentation was relishing in past accomplishments with a guidance dedicated to (former) political expediency on the subject of “climate change.” There are not just numerous factual errors in Chu’s address, to me it sounds like something that might have been written about ten years ago. Needless to say, I felt compelled to send a message to Dr. Chu, outlining my misgivings. It is reproduced (minus salutations) below:

July 12, 2017

I read with interest your recent keynote address to the 2017 Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, as available at http://www.lindau-nobel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Keynote-Steven-Chu-LiNo17-25-June-2017.pdf .

Please let me begin with wishing your wife a speedy recovery from her unfortunate fall.

In terms of the guidance to the world that many people expect from a keynote address to dozens of Nobel Laureates, with many guests and students attending, permit me to express some concerns and questions to you.

Already the title/subject of your presentation “Science as an Insurance Policy to the Risks of Climate Change” is misleading. The “climate” is a construct that is arrived at after multi-decadal observations for a particular region on earth. Due to the inclination of the earth on the ecliptic, it also varies strongly with the latitude. Then, there are many natural forces that influence this “climate”, including the sun’s radiation, volcanic events on earth, etc.  None of these can be influenced or controlled by mankind. All the 100+ current “climate models” do not – and likely never will – be able to incorporate the phenomenal quantities of water that are being precipitated and re-evaporated from the earth’s surface each year.

However, even if I were wrong in that, climate change is nothing new and you have correctly mentioned the six ice ages over the last 600,000 years. What you have NOT mentioned though is, that the great North American and Eurasian ice shields of 20,000 years ago melted away without mankind’s influence and without any great change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

That alone makes your idea of “science as an insurance policy” worthless, at least in the traditional sense of a fire insurance (your example). The premiums paid for such insurance policies are not to prevent fires, nor to dowse any fires (firefighting is paid for with property taxes and the like), but to cover any material losses.

Then you claim that “the Arctic and Antarctic polar ice caps and the Glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica are melting much faster than was predicted 10 years ago.” I sure wonder where you got that information. The facts are substantially different:

The Antarctic ice cap has been increasing in recent years, both in mass and extent ( https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses ).

The ice cap of Greenland has seen rapid growth in mass, for example see the latest graph by the Danish Met. Inst. ( http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/07/Image1408_shadow.png ).

The “polar” sea-ice in the Arctic (there is no true “ice cap” in the Arctic as there is no land mass above the sea level anywhere near the North Pole) has been quite stable. Of course the latter fluctuates tremendously with the seasons, roughly between 4 and 14 million square kilometres in extent alone, and in terms of ice volume, the seasonal fluctuation is approximately fivefold, between 5,000 and 25,000 km^3 ice. Clearly then, your statements about the disappearing polar ice masses are wrong.

Therefore, also your next paragraph where you say “Even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions, the full extent of the damage we have already done will not be seen for 100 years” is equally hogwash. Apart from the fact that the whole “carbon-pollution” [past U.S. President Obama’s preferred phrase for CO2] = “greenhouse gas” theory is based on misunderstandings and false models. However, even if it were not, what exactly is the “damage we have done?” Are you referring to many formerly arid areas now greening due to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere and irrigation? Both have helped to feed the rapidly growing world population that rose since the year 1900 from ~1.6 billion to the current ~7.5 billion, a factor of ~5. In contrast, the CO2 levels only increased by approximately 1/3rd during that period.

Your presentation to the 2017 Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting contains a number of other highly questionable statements. For example, you say that “There is a real danger that rising seas or collapsing agriculture due to heat and drought will lead to massive climate-induced migrations.” Perhaps you ought to read my recent post on “Turtles and Reality“, published at several sites (e.g.,  https://www.iceagenow.info/turtles-and-reality/ ) and also translated and published in Italian. This claimed “one meter sea level rise is possible by the end of this century, and 4-5 m rise by 2200” is another figment of imagination.

The same holds true for “the specter of non-linear ‘tipping points’ that cause more severe changes.” The theory of climatic “tipping points” has been strongly pushed by Dr. S. Rahmstorf, PIK, in the past. As I wrote in 2015, “… the entire climate tipping point theory is pure bunk” ( http://canadafreepress.com/article/the-myth-of-climate-tipping-points ).

Just one more point that I consider totally unscientific: You state “There are numerous people and politicians who enjoy the benefits of scientific discovery, but do not accept the compelling scientific evidence and overwhelming scientific consensus [my emphasis] that humans are changing our climate.” I find this statement of yours deplorable. Science has never been and will never be something where “consensus” is relevant. In fact, there were times when the “consensus” was that the sun moved around the earth and other ideas that have been proven false since.

One can only hope that you reconsider your statement and amend your keynote speech text accordingly. Otherwise, you are doing science a great disfavour and besmirch the reputation of your esteemed colleagues.

As of this date, Dr. Chu has neither acknowledged nor replied to my letter. I’ll certainly let you know if or when I have the honor of receiving any such – more likely than not NEVER.

Of course, I could only conclude that this keynote is not worth “the paper it’s written on.”


Dr Klaus L E KaiserDr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser is a professional scientist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Technical University, Munich, Germany. He has worked as a research scientist and project chief at Environment Canada‘s Canada Centre for Inland Waters for over 30 years and is currently Director of Research at TerraBase Inc. He is author of nearly 300 publications in scientific journals, government and agency reports, books, computer programs, trade magazines, and newspaper articles.

Dr. Kaiser has been president of the International Association for Great Lakes Research, a peer reviewer of numerous scientific papers for several journals, Editor-in-Chief of the Water Quality Research Journal of Canada for nearly a decade, and an adjunct professor. He has contributed to a variety of scientific projects and reports and has made many presentations at national and international conferences.

Dr. Kaiser is author of CONVENIENT MYTHS, the green revolution – perceptions, politics, and facts

Dr. Kaiser can be reached at: mail@convenientmyths.com


11 thoughts on “A Keynote Address to Forget

  1. The assault on the scientific method is in full swing. Where AGW theories, on climate change are accepted without question.
    The late physicist Dr. Richard P. Feynman said it best when he said, “Better to have questions we can’t answer than answers we can’t question.”

  2. Great Job Dr. Kaiser – as always. I am hopeful Mother Nature will decisively de-bunk the global-warming myth in the very near future. The perfect-storm for global cooling has emerged.
    The Grand Solar Maximum is over.
    Weak Solar Cycle 24 is already starting to fizzle out early, and SC-25 will be a dud.
    2 factors are forcing an epic increase in cloud cover, which causes cooling and precipitation: Cosmic radiation is skyrocketing in synch with the escalating decline in Earth’s magnetic field. And the decreasing solar activity has already started an increase in volcanic activity.
    Stratospheric particulate from the volcanoes, all by itself, is proven to increase clouds and cooling.
    We are just a few years out from no longer having to show that global cooling is the real threat. Mother Nature will show everybody.

  3. My main reason for rejecting climate “science” is based on the reality that the basic simple model for the greenhouse effect is unscientific and wrong.

    Make no mistake – there is only one model for the “greenhouse effect” – this is fact !

    This model utilises the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to establish the “greenhouse effect” – this is fact !

    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation, Wein’s and Planck’s laws were derived from experiments observing the radiant emissions from cavity ovens in the 19th century.

    These radiant emissions had a continuous spectrum – emitted energy was observed and measured across all wavelengths.

    Our atmosphere is constituted of various gases and NONE of them has EVER been observed to emit a continuous spectrum despite numerous experiments under all sorts of temperature and pressure – NEVER !

    This includes all “greenhouse gases”. CO2 emits 3 lines and even water vapour does not emit anything representing a continuous spectrum !

    It is scientifically invalid to apply the equations derived for solid objects emitting a continuous spectrum to objects that do not !

    Make no mistake on this point – the Stefan-Boltzmann equation does not apply to substances which can convect !

    Even Planck warned of this folly !

    Besides this all real objects have differing properties and the Stefan-Boltzmann law only applies to solids under certain conditions.

    It does not apply for example when a solid melts – during melting loads of energy is absorbed but does not induce a temperature increase but rather is used to destroy the chemical bonds which maintain a solid’s characteristics.

    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation does not apply to gases and therefore ALL of the fundamentals of climate “science” are wrong !

    Make no mistake on this – there is only one model for the “greenhouse effect” and it employs the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which is wrong – this is fact !

    If there is no scientific definition for the “greenhouse effect” – and, make no mistake on this, there isn’t – then there is no possibility for a man made “enhanced greenhouse effect” !

    Climate science is wrong at its base construct and I am not prepared to sacrifice modern society on incorrect application of science !

    You cannot make observations of something and derive “laws” from those observations and subsequently apply these “laws” to other things that NEVER exhibit the same characteristics that resulted in the original observations – that IS junk science !

    • Well said Rosco. There are so many faults in this idiotic AGW fiasco but what you have laid out here is the fundamental flaw in their horror story.

      All around the world there are people who are just ignorant and worship the sciency types in their lab coats. Just look at their idiotic models that supposedly synthesise all of what they purport to know about the climate and see how far from reality they are.

      Now they continually “adjust” the data to try and make it match their models and they call themselves scientists. Bah!

    • Exactly Rosco!

      And the climatists believe they can model the whole global climate when they can not model clouds with much accuracy.

  4. may their numbers decline still lower!
    love to have been a fly on the wall to see who cheered and who didnt,,making the “assumption” nearly always fatal to do;-) that some of them might have actually BEEN scientists not agitprop gimmefunds wanna be famous types

    i wonder was the absent speakers wifes accident due to slipping on ICE?
    woulda been poetic if so.

  5. Might be frustrating or appear futile but speaking truth to power is never a bad thing.
    Dr. Chu now knows his argument has holes (many and some gaping). With knowledge comes responsibility, let’s now see how a Nobel laureate reacts to, more than a challenge of his facts but, an, ultimately, test of his character.

    Well done Dr. Kaiser.

  6. The overwhelming amount of Scientists in Early 1970’s were predicting a mini Ice age. Make no mistake not as severe as the one the Eartth experienced about 7,000 years ago but quite a drop in temps. Way more snow, way less rain, tiny spring, tiny summer, tiny fall. Crop failures and starvation are in the cards. We could’ve prepared if liars led by Al Internet Gore hadn’t made his Millions inconveniently . The obamanites loved it! Bad USA did it! We need to pay and restrict our ability to protect ourselves. Yet biggest polluters by FAR are CHINA, INDIA and Africa’s cut slash burn farming. I’m not telling you what costs 5$ a 20lb bag I’ll stick up on so you can buy Gold-useless for 100-maybe forever if Technology wiped by Electric Grid failures. Oh big enough storm we don’t just lose GRID but the computers in your post 1984 will fry. Car DOA forever.
    We could’ve prepared better. Faraday type grounding of essential electric, water, sewage hospitals , FULL MILITARY not some as now, and way more. Thank goodness Trump should be getting more goal and oil production on line.
    If Electricity fails Civilization fails. No money, I’ll still take a BitCoin lol, no accounts no trucks to deliver food. Even if food got harvested it will rot in food belt as coasts wage survival wars. Call Police! Nope gone, no cars no money no working. Several States will go much better and/or areas in them. I live East End of LI, NY. Grow berries, veggies and raise hens. Small but give extra away to friends/gay. West of Nassau 6.5 Million people will be blocked from access to Manhatten and Western USA. They will like Zombies head East to our farms Trust me they are not enough for locals. Many from City will try to take it will get very ugly. I’m prepared if lucky for @5,000 plus hand style weapons if I get lucky. Trust me we know at East FEMA is t coming to LI, NY. 7 million in small area so it will be cut away.
    Liars about the 99.98% Gorilla in the Solar System ( Sun-Our Star like other ones we’ve seen do this and recorded 5000+ years ago till modern time by China) will FREEZE our buts. Our .02% CO2 ain’t going to mean a dang thing

  7. Thank-you Dr. Kaiser for your efforts in attempting to keep the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting rational, logical, properly scientific.
    Thank-you for standing for truth and honesty.

Comments are closed.