A Nobel prize doesn't make you a climatologist

The bottom line? The predispositions within us, which are amplified these days by polarized media and politics, almost guarantee that even “ perfect information” on climate will never magically galvanize the kind of response that would be required to decarbonize human energy choices even as human appetites and numbers crest.

The Nobel Divide and the Climate Divide
ANDREW C. REVKIN
Depressing

This from a Nobel prize winning physicist

The geologic record as we know it thus suggests that climate is a profoundly grander thing than energy. Energy procurement is a matter of engineering and keeping the lights on under circumstances that are likely to get more difficult as time progresses. Climate change, by contrast, is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself. The earth doesn’t include the potentially catastrophic effects on civilization in its planning. Far from being responsible for damaging the earth’s climate, civilization might not be able to forestall any of these terrible changes once the earth has decided to make them. Were the earth determined to freeze Canada again, for example, it’s difficult to imagine doing anything except selling your real estate in Canada. If it decides to melt Greenland, it might be best to unload your property in Bangladesh. The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control

I guess he skipped climatology class the day they taught the carbon cycle and greenhouse effect (or maybe didn't take the class at all?). He's a quantum physicist. Oh, and this guy doesn't believe in black holes either. Kind of a kook I'd say.

---

Update
Scientists React to a Nobelist’s Climate Thoughts