Listen up for once, CO2 does NOT govern Climate

[Robert W]

This video is by this planet's finest of all climate experts.
He explains the major errors we have been led to the alarmist camp by.

 

[Rambunctious]

Its not a crisis... but anything the Dems can run on they change into an immediate crisis.... can you say gas lighting?....

 

[Crick]

This video is by this planet's finest of all climate experts.
He explains the major errors we have been led to the alarmist camp by.

Who is this "finest of all climate experts" and how has he earned that title?

 

[EMH]

Who is this "finest of all climate experts" and how has he earned that title?

Maybe he can explain a MAP OF THE ARCTIC unlike the Co2 FRAUD supporters here...

 

[Robert W]

Who is this "finest of all climate experts" and how has he earned that title?

Dr. Richard Lindzen. A prolific scientist who published hundreds of papers on climate. Notice he explains things so that even the dumb can get it.

 

[Robert W]

Dr. Steven Koonin worked for Obama and he decided to examine all of the science as to climate. And he included studying the claims made by the IPCC.

He now does not believe Man causes climate. I never believed man causes climate no more than the tooth fairy causes children to grow a new set of teeth.

 

[Crick]

Dr. Steven Koonin worked for Obama and he decided to examine all of the science as to climate. And he included studying the claims made by the IPCC.

He now does not believe Man causes climate. I never believed man causes climate no more than the tooth fairy causes children to grow a new set of teeth.

From Koonin's Wikipedia article

Reception of 2021 book Unsettled​

Critics of Koonin's book Unsettled accused him of cherry picking data, muddying the waters surrounding the science of climate change, and having no experience in climate science.[24]

In a review in Scientific American, economist Gary Yohe wrote that Koonin "falsely suggests that we don't understand the risks well enough to take action":

The science is stronger than ever around findings that speak to the likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, and has been growing stronger for decades. In the early days of research, the uncertainty was wide; but with each subsequent step that uncertainty has narrowed or become better understood. This is how science works, and in the case of climate, the early indications detected and attributed in the 1980s and 1990s, have come true, over and over again and sooner than anticipated... [Decision makers] are using the best and most honest science to inform prospective investments in abatement (reducing greenhouse gas emissions to diminish the estimated likelihoods of dangerous climate change impacts) and adaptation (reducing vulnerabilities to diminish their current and projected consequences).[21]

Physicist Mark Boslough, a former student of Koonin, posted a critical review at Yale Climate Connections. He stated that "Koonin makes use of an old strawman concocted by opponents of climate science in the 1990s to create an illusion of arrogant scientists, biased media, and lying politicians – making them easier to attack."

Nonprofit organization Inside Climate News reported that climate scientists call Koonin's conclusions "fatally out of date ... and based on the 2013 physical science report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[10]

Mark P. Mills, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, and faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, lauded the book in The Wall Street Journal as "rebut[ing] much of the dominant political narrative". Twelve scientists analyzed Mills's arguments and said that he merely repeated Koonin's incorrect and misleading claims. Koonin responded with an article answering these critics.[

 

[Robert W]

From Koonin's Wikipedia article

Reception of 2021 book Unsettled​

Critics of Koonin's book Unsettled accused him of cherry picking data, muddying the waters surrounding the science of climate change, and having no experience in climate science.[24]

In a review in Scientific American, economist Gary Yohe wrote that Koonin "falsely suggests that we don't understand the risks well enough to take action":

The science is stronger than ever around findings that speak to the likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, and has been growing stronger for decades. In the early days of research, the uncertainty was wide; but with each subsequent step that uncertainty has narrowed or become better understood. This is how science works, and in the case of climate, the early indications detected and attributed in the 1980s and 1990s, have come true, over and over again and sooner than anticipated... [Decision makers] are using the best and most honest science to inform prospective investments in abatement (reducing greenhouse gas emissions to diminish the estimated likelihoods of dangerous climate change impacts) and adaptation (reducing vulnerabilities to diminish their current and projected consequences).[21]

Physicist Mark Boslough, a former student of Koonin, posted a critical review at Yale Climate Connections. He stated that "Koonin makes use of an old strawman concocted by opponents of climate science in the 1990s to create an illusion of arrogant scientists, biased media, and lying politicians – making them easier to attack."

Nonprofit organization Inside Climate News reported that climate scientists call Koonin's conclusions "fatally out of date ... and based on the 2013 physical science report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[10]

Mark P. Mills, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, and faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, lauded the book in The Wall Street Journal as "rebut[ing] much of the dominant political narrative". Twelve scientists analyzed Mills's arguments and said that he merely repeated Koonin's incorrect and misleading claims. Koonin responded with an article answering these critics.[

The so called critics are politicians and others who do not understand a thing about climate other than it appears when it rains, snows or gets hot.

Their delusion is man controls climate. Koonin backs up his comments in his book.

 

[Robert W]

Koonins interview with Peter Robinson is a must watch video. Stop living your life in fear. Fear solves nothing. What Democrats want is for countries like India, China and a huge part of Africa to live in fear and accept they use almost no electricity at all compared to we Americans. We americans should promote nuclear power to change our source of electricity and disband the more expensive solar and wind power installations.

 

[Robert W]

Jon Robson debunks the alarmists notions that man is in charge of climate and can regulate it.

 

[Robert W]

This presents a super good example of genuine science referencing climate of the earth.
Questions you need to know. What is the ideal temperature for earth? What is the ideal climate given climate lasts 30-40 years in age. Can man regulate climate? If so, how? And when would be a good time to regulate climate? Why don't the models used by science explain this?
Watch this video to get a science version of this issue.

 

[Crick]

The so called critics are politicians and others who do not understand a thing about climate other than it appears when it rains, snows or gets hot.

Bullshit

---

---

"The book — and Koonin’s views — have received favourable reviews in many quarters, lauded in the pages of The Wall Street Journal and the talk shows of Fox News. But the reception among the scientific community has been significantly rockier. He’s been accused of cherry-picking data, muddying the scientific waters and, simply, not having a CV of peer reviewed climate science work to burnish his credentials.

“It’s a little bit like if I, as a climate scientist or an atmospheric scientist, were to write a book about high-energy physics saying all the things I think is wrong with it, it’s just not very credible,” says Don Wuebbles, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois who has been an author on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. “The same goes here. It’s full of major mistakes, it misrepresents the science.”

The conclusion Koonin leads readers to is that if the data is as sloppy as he believes it is, then policymakers should be waiting for more and better data before making decisions about how to confront climate change. In the book, he criticizes climate models in particular, saying they fail on a number of fronts, making it hard to make policy choices. But, Koonin tells the Post, they are making their “best effort at tackling what is an extraordinarily difficult challenge.”

“The models are useful, they’re interesting, but to be able to make societal decisions on that basis is really very difficult and it’s taking a lot of risk,” he says.

Gary Yohe, a professor of economics and environmental studies at Wesleyan University, said the “world is 15 years past” the idea we need more information to make better-informed decisions."

The unalarmist: Steven Koonin's controversial climate contentions

Koonin's conclusion is that if the data is as sloppy as he believes it is, then policymakers should be waiting for more and better data before making decisions

nationalpost.com

---

---

Gary Yohe is NOT a politician and knows a great deal more about climate than does Koonin.

Their delusion is man controls climate. Koonin backs up his comments in his book.

With uninformed, out-of-date commentary.

 

[EMH]

Bullshit

---

---

"The book — and Koonin’s views — have received favourable reviews in many quarters, lauded in the pages of The Wall Street Journal and the talk shows of Fox News. But the reception among the scientific community has been significantly rockier. He’s been accused of cherry-picking data, muddying the scientific waters and, simply, not having a CV of peer reviewed climate science work to burnish his credentials.

“It’s a little bit like if I, as a climate scientist or an atmospheric scientist, were to write a book about high-energy physics saying all the things I think is wrong with it, it’s just not very credible,” says Don Wuebbles, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois who has been an author on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. “The same goes here. It’s full of major mistakes, it misrepresents the science.”

The conclusion Koonin leads readers to is that if the data is as sloppy as he believes it is, then policymakers should be waiting for more and better data before making decisions about how to confront climate change. In the book, he criticizes climate models in particular, saying they fail on a number of fronts, making it hard to make policy choices. But, Koonin tells the Post, they are making their “best effort at tackling what is an extraordinarily difficult challenge.”

“The models are useful, they’re interesting, but to be able to make societal decisions on that basis is really very difficult and it’s taking a lot of risk,” he says.

Gary Yohe, a professor of economics and environmental studies at Wesleyan University, said the “world is 15 years past” the idea we need more information to make better-informed decisions."

The unalarmist: Steven Koonin's controversial climate contentions

Koonin's conclusion is that if the data is as sloppy as he believes it is, then policymakers should be waiting for more and better data before making decisions

nationalpost.com

---

---

Gary Yohe is NOT a politician and knows a great deal more about climate than does Koonin.


With uninformed, out-of-date commentary.

The satellite and balloon data is all we need.

Co2 went up

Atmospheric temps did not

THEORY REJECTED

 

[Robert W]

Bullshit

---

---

"The book — and Koonin’s views — have received favourable reviews in many quarters, lauded in the pages of The Wall Street Journal and the talk shows of Fox News. But the reception among the scientific community has been significantly rockier. He’s been accused of cherry-picking data, muddying the scientific waters and, simply, not having a CV of peer reviewed climate science work to burnish his credentials.

“It’s a little bit like if I, as a climate scientist or an atmospheric scientist, were to write a book about high-energy physics saying all the things I think is wrong with it, it’s just not very credible,” says Don Wuebbles, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois who has been an author on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. “The same goes here. It’s full of major mistakes, it misrepresents the science.”

The conclusion Koonin leads readers to is that if the data is as sloppy as he believes it is, then policymakers should be waiting for more and better data before making decisions about how to confront climate change. In the book, he criticizes climate models in particular, saying they fail on a number of fronts, making it hard to make policy choices. But, Koonin tells the Post, they are making their “best effort at tackling what is an extraordinarily difficult challenge.”

“The models are useful, they’re interesting, but to be able to make societal decisions on that basis is really very difficult and it’s taking a lot of risk,” he says.

Gary Yohe, a professor of economics and environmental studies at Wesleyan University, said the “world is 15 years past” the idea we need more information to make better-informed decisions."

The unalarmist: Steven Koonin's controversial climate contentions

Koonin's conclusion is that if the data is as sloppy as he believes it is, then policymakers should be waiting for more and better data before making decisions

nationalpost.com

---

---

Gary Yohe is NOT a politician and knows a great deal more about climate than does Koonin.


With uninformed, out-of-date commentary.

The odds favor that you will never live long enough to be harmed by what is loosely called climate by Democrats. Notice they are the group trying to run your life for you by forcing you to blow over $60,000 for a car run by batteries made in China.

Koonin says, study the data and not the claims by politicians.

 

[Robert W]

The satellite and balloon data is all we need.

Co2 went up

Atmospheric temps did not

THEORY REJECTED

Temps fall and Democrats deny they fall.

 

[ChemEngineer]

The Keeling Curve (top graph, designed to mislead and frighten you) PRETENDS that the carbon dioxide is all man-made. In fact less than 4% of carbon dioxide is anthropogenic.

Moreover, water vapor is forty times the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

I created the bottom graph to demonstrate how wretchedly dishonest the Climate Change Cult is.

Now here is the frosting on their hot air.
Water vapor absorbs far more infrared radiation (heat) than
carbon dioxide does. Multiply this by forty.
This is why foggy nights are warm (water vapor)_dry, clear nights
are cold. The carbon dioxide is the same in both cases. HELLO! ! !


.

 

[Crick]

In fact less than 4% of carbon dioxide is anthropogenic.

This is a lie. Since 1850, humans have increased the atmosphere's CO2 level by more than 50%.

Moreover, water vapor is forty times the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

Unlike CO2, water vapor is a precipitable component of the atmosphere. It's level in the global atmosphere can only be changed by changing the global average temperature. Its increase is a result of global warming and a feedback not a direct cause.

I can't believe you call yourself an engineer. I wouldn't hire you.

 

[Robert W]

This is a lie. Since 1850, humans have increased the atmosphere's CO2 level by more than 50%.

Unlike CO2, water vapor is a precipitable component of the atmosphere. It's level in the global atmosphere can only be changed by changing the global average temperature. Its increase is a result of global warming and a feedback not a direct cause.

I can't believe you call yourself an engineer. I wouldn't hire you.

Chemengineer is well known to be very accurate.

 

[Crick]

Chemengineer is well known to be very accurate.

He is well known to be a blithering idiot. Look up his claims for yourself. The pre-industrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. It is now 420 ppm, a 50% increase, and both isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping calculations show that every bit of that increase is due to the combustion of fossil fuels.

 

[Robert W]

He is well known to be a blithering idiot. Look up his claims for yourself. The pre-industrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. It is now 420 ppm, a 50% increase, and both isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping calculations show that every bit of that increase is due to the combustion of fossil fuels.

420 is very low on the scale this planet needs. Humans tolerate a hell of a lot more. But even if you doubt Chemengineer, you can't doubt Professor Richard Lindzen who ran the climate department for MIT. Al Gore ran nothing at all.