Re: Not even close
Nor did he claim to be. Neither was what he said in any way wrong. Q=1 was anticipated - it has been the objective of this scientific run at NIF for a few years now. Nor is it particularly important for climate impact, as everyone knows you need at *least* Q=10 to have a feasible product. That provides essential color to the article that while this is an important breakthrough for high energy physics, it isn't relevant to the climate crisis or our society's response to it. Something like limiting subsidies of fossil fuels would. Given both NIF and fossil fuel subsidies are funded from the public purse that's a perfectly valid comparison.
>It's common in climate science to dismiss atmospheric physicists like say, Lindzen, Spencer or Christy
It's way more common to describe them as cranks, contrarians and/or in the pay of oil companies, or at the very least on the far fringes of scientific consensus.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
