Dr. John Clauser is the author of the third chapter in the new climate canary compendium we’re discussing in this series. And he’s made quite a splash in the science world, since he is both a Nobel prize-winning physicist and a very vocal climate skeptic, indeed a self-described denier. And there’s an unexpected juxtaposition between his deep authority and academic style when writing about quantum physics and his discarding of collegial academic niceties when he directs his scorn to climate orthodoxy, calling it misguided pseudoscience, and accusing climate scientists of misconduct and fraud. His speaking style at conferences is, shall we say, particularly unfiltered and impolitic. But is he right? Perhaps he will be vindicated in time, but for now we await proof, especially when it comes to his assertions about our intellectual adversaries being engaged in fakery not zealotry. But mercifully what he has to say in this chapter is not primarily focused on climate change. Rather, it’s an attempt to inspire young minds to appreciate the beauty of science which, in fairness to his rough tongue on climate, is a far cry from the ugliness of politicized science.

Lest anyone throw his physics training or Nobel Prize at us and demand we take his climate claims on grounds of academic authority, we at CDN don’t work that way. We are strong proponents of the educated layman, and quite prepared to dismiss claims of authority on the part of orthodox climate scientists if they don’t have and provide the evidence to back up what they say. But of course consistency demands we apply the same standard to people whose views align more closely with our own. And to be clear, it’s not just that Clausen’s writings on climate have thus far not appeared in any conventional climate journal. It’s that he hasn’t written them down in a formal way in any venue so it’s hard to know if he makes a persuasive case, or can.

His claims are important. One of his main arguments is that the so-called Earth Energy Imbalance, the proposed mechanism by which carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are warming the planet by letting in ultraviolet light to heat the surface essentially unchecked but then trapping too much of the outgoing infrared radiation to keep the temperature stable, has never been demonstrated because the satellite instruments are too inaccurate to measure it. He has also argued that cloud mechanisms automatically balance out energy flows in the atmosphere in such a way that nullify the effect of rising CO2 levels.

He is obviously smart enough, and informed enough, that we can’t simply dismiss his claims as idle ranting. What we hope is that he is smart enough that when he finally puts his ideas out in the open to inform us in a formal and organized way, they will be backed up by clear evidence and convincing reasoning. Indeed we strongly urge him to do so without delay.

If he does, it will fulfill the advice he gives to young scientists in this chapter. He talks about the way he designed and carefully undertook experiments to test ideas about quantum entanglement that were so complex Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr couldn’t work out the answers and had disagreed on the theory. Which isn’t boasting; he really did.

Clauser said he approached the challenge with an open mind and sought only to find out the truth. He urges the young, aspiring scientists among his readership to approach all their work that way. Seek the truth and don’t worry where it will lead or who it might offend. A sentiment that leads him briefly to the climate topic, where he states his view that it is not a crisis and the warnings are being exaggerated.

Clearly we believe it to be true, having gone through the evidence ourselves for many years. And we are inclined to believe that his diagnosis of the way the clouds and the energy imbalance are modeled contributes to the problem. But he hasn’t proven it, so we’re withholding judgment. We get the irritation, sir. But we need the paper or papers, or the book.