MIT’s Dr. Lindzen Pokes Fun At The ‘Naïve’, Well-Funded ‘Scientific Reasoning’ That 1 Factor – CO2 – Controls Climate

[westwall]

No one sai

As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

this was in a response to a letter that he sent to Trump to ignore climate change as it is not scientifically justified gosh where have we heard that before.

So who should he believe this one guy who is an MIT professor or the other 22 MIT professors.

in his letter he supposedly had 300 signatures from what he called imminent scientist and other qualified individuals. Which is the boys club of deniers who have made a life denying climate change. A review of the list had very few true scientist and a majority of people in other fields that believe what he believes.

People are free to believe what they want and they are smart enough to persuade Trump as he his certainly know his science.

Ooooohh, who should we believe...Darwin....or all the others?

Einstein...or all the others?

Wegener......or all the others?

Copernicus....or all the others?

Hmmmmm, looks like "all the others" have a long, long, looooong history, of being wrong.

At the end of the spectrum here are a list of guys you probably never heard of who had theories and were wrong.

Fleischmann-Pon's Nuclear Fusiion

The Blank Slate

Einstein's Static Universe

even Einstein got it wrong

Martian Canals were thought to be real but turns out they were just an optical illusion

Spontaneous generation was something Aristotle though off but was wrong.

A theory of science can be debunked

But it won't be debunked by the minority unless they can prove it to the majority.

Scientist will accept change if the data shows it as such

So if repubs want to pull a Telsa then go for it.

The list goes on. yes sometime they do get it wrong. But its not because of public opinion or because the right wants to believe.

If it is proven wrong then it is wrong. Right now climate change is the consensus. If someone was to come up with a way to debunk it then it will be debunk. That is science. It is not a political thing that politicians or bloggers can even understand. So far they haven't. debunk climate chance. If a person wants to get on the denial side , then that what they believe. It still does mean it was debunk it.

Overwhelming facts debunk it not overwhelming denial

Aristotle wasn't a scientist, nor had the scientific method been developed.

What is one of the primary requirements of the scientific method?

All results must be REPEATABLE, by anyone.

Climatologists hide their results and have even claimed that their work not be repeatable, which renders their work nothing more than pseudo science.

NASA who can put a man on the moon and send probes to Mars. One slight miscalculation would send it floating in space forever. They support the idea of climate change. They are scientist who can hit the target in space. If it was pseudo science then they would not support it. It is the best available data, and deniers are the ones who use the same data to deny.

And they can't produce a single repeatable experiment.

All you have are appeal to authority logical fallacies.

Try and do better because you're boring, and not well versed in the subject.

 

[Kilroy2]

No one sai

As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

this was in a response to a letter that he sent to Trump to ignore climate change as it is not scientifically justified gosh where have we heard that before.

So who should he believe this one guy who is an MIT professor or the other 22 MIT professors.

in his letter he supposedly had 300 signatures from what he called imminent scientist and other qualified individuals. Which is the boys club of deniers who have made a life denying climate change. A review of the list had very few true scientist and a majority of people in other fields that believe what he believes.

People are free to believe what they want and they are smart enough to persuade Trump as he his certainly know his science.

Ooooohh, who should we believe...Darwin....or all the others?

Einstein...or all the others?

Wegener......or all the others?

Copernicus....or all the others?

Hmmmmm, looks like "all the others" have a long, long, looooong history, of being wrong.

At the end of the spectrum here are a list of guys you probably never heard of who had theories and were wrong.

Fleischmann-Pon's Nuclear Fusiion

The Blank Slate

Einstein's Static Universe

even Einstein got it wrong

Martian Canals were thought to be real but turns out they were just an optical illusion

Spontaneous generation was something Aristotle though off but was wrong.

A theory of science can be debunked

But it won't be debunked by the minority unless they can prove it to the majority.

Scientist will accept change if the data shows it as such

So if repubs want to pull a Telsa then go for it.

The list goes on. yes sometime they do get it wrong. But its not because of public opinion or because the right wants to believe.

If it is proven wrong then it is wrong. Right now climate change is the consensus. If someone was to come up with a way to debunk it then it will be debunk. That is science. It is not a political thing that politicians or bloggers can even understand. So far they haven't. debunk climate chance. If a person wants to get on the denial side , then that what they believe. It still does mean it was debunk it.

Overwhelming facts debunk it not overwhelming denial

Aristotle wasn't a scientist, nor had the scientific method been developed.

What is one of the primary requirements of the scientific method?

All results must be REPEATABLE, by anyone.

Climatologists hide their results and have even claimed that their work not be repeatable, which renders their work nothing more than pseudo science.

NASA who can put a man on the moon and send probes to Mars. One slight miscalculation would send it floating in space forever. They support the idea of climate change. They are scientist who can hit the target in space. If it was pseudo science then they would not support it. It is the best available data, and deniers are the ones who use the same data to deny.

And they can't produce a single repeatable experiment.

All you have are appeal to authority logical fallacies.

Try and do better because you're boring, and not well versed in the subject.

what is boring is the deniers still denying it when they are the minority.

Spare me the authority logical fallacies as deniers hold that this MIT guy is an authority that you guys are rallying around. I would question where he actually know anything bur you guys believe him just the same. You just deny the supporting evidence and just jump on the bandwagon because he said something you like.

Ad Hoc Rescue appears to be your forte.



sounds like anything goes logical fallacies.

 

[westwall]

No one sai

As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

this was in a response to a letter that he sent to Trump to ignore climate change as it is not scientifically justified gosh where have we heard that before.

So who should he believe this one guy who is an MIT professor or the other 22 MIT professors.

in his letter he supposedly had 300 signatures from what he called imminent scientist and other qualified individuals. Which is the boys club of deniers who have made a life denying climate change. A review of the list had very few true scientist and a majority of people in other fields that believe what he believes.

People are free to believe what they want and they are smart enough to persuade Trump as he his certainly know his science.

Ooooohh, who should we believe...Darwin....or all the others?

Einstein...or all the others?

Wegener......or all the others?

Copernicus....or all the others?

Hmmmmm, looks like "all the others" have a long, long, looooong history, of being wrong.

At the end of the spectrum here are a list of guys you probably never heard of who had theories and were wrong.

Fleischmann-Pon's Nuclear Fusiion

The Blank Slate

Einstein's Static Universe

even Einstein got it wrong

Martian Canals were thought to be real but turns out they were just an optical illusion

Spontaneous generation was something Aristotle though off but was wrong.

A theory of science can be debunked

But it won't be debunked by the minority unless they can prove it to the majority.

Scientist will accept change if the data shows it as such

So if repubs want to pull a Telsa then go for it.

The list goes on. yes sometime they do get it wrong. But its not because of public opinion or because the right wants to believe.

If it is proven wrong then it is wrong. Right now climate change is the consensus. If someone was to come up with a way to debunk it then it will be debunk. That is science. It is not a political thing that politicians or bloggers can even understand. So far they haven't. debunk climate chance. If a person wants to get on the denial side , then that what they believe. It still does mean it was debunk it.

Overwhelming facts debunk it not overwhelming denial

Aristotle wasn't a scientist, nor had the scientific method been developed.

What is one of the primary requirements of the scientific method?

All results must be REPEATABLE, by anyone.

Climatologists hide their results and have even claimed that their work not be repeatable, which renders their work nothing more than pseudo science.

NASA who can put a man on the moon and send probes to Mars. One slight miscalculation would send it floating in space forever. They support the idea of climate change. They are scientist who can hit the target in space. If it was pseudo science then they would not support it. It is the best available data, and deniers are the ones who use the same data to deny.

And they can't produce a single repeatable experiment.

All you have are appeal to authority logical fallacies.

Try and do better because you're boring, and not well versed in the subject.

what is boring is the deniers still denying it when they are the minority.

Spare me the authority logical fallacies as deniers hold that this MIT guy is an authority that you guys are rallying around. I would question where he actually know anything bur you guys believe him just the same. You just deny the supporting evidence and just jump on the bandwagon because he said something you like.

Ad Hoc Rescue appears to be your forte.



sounds like anything goes logical fallacies.

No, what is boring is uneducated morons denying the scientific method and pushing a pseudo science based on "coulds", "perhaps", and "mights". Words that are well known among the ranks of charlatans. Furthermore, a "science" that falsifies real data sets to conform to their ridiculously bad computer models.

That is what is boring.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No one sai

As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

this was in a response to a letter that he sent to Trump to ignore climate change as it is not scientifically justified gosh where have we heard that before.

So who should he believe this one guy who is an MIT professor or the other 22 MIT professors.

in his letter he supposedly had 300 signatures from what he called imminent scientist and other qualified individuals. Which is the boys club of deniers who have made a life denying climate change. A review of the list had very few true scientist and a majority of people in other fields that believe what he believes.

People are free to believe what they want and they are smart enough to persuade Trump as he his certainly know his science.

Ooooohh, who should we believe...Darwin....or all the others?

Einstein...or all the others?

Wegener......or all the others?

Copernicus....or all the others?

Hmmmmm, looks like "all the others" have a long, long, looooong history, of being wrong.

At the end of the spectrum here are a list of guys you probably never heard of who had theories and were wrong.

Fleischmann-Pon's Nuclear Fusiion

The Blank Slate

Einstein's Static Universe

even Einstein got it wrong

Martian Canals were thought to be real but turns out they were just an optical illusion

Spontaneous generation was something Aristotle though off but was wrong.

A theory of science can be debunked

But it won't be debunked by the minority unless they can prove it to the majority.

Scientist will accept change if the data shows it as such

So if repubs want to pull a Telsa then go for it.

The list goes on. yes sometime they do get it wrong. But its not because of public opinion or because the right wants to believe.

If it is proven wrong then it is wrong. Right now climate change is the consensus. If someone was to come up with a way to debunk it then it will be debunk. That is science. It is not a political thing that politicians or bloggers can even understand. So far they haven't. debunk climate chance. If a person wants to get on the denial side , then that what they believe. It still does mean it was debunk it.

Overwhelming facts debunk it not overwhelming denial

Aristotle wasn't a scientist, nor had the scientific method been developed.

What is one of the primary requirements of the scientific method?

All results must be REPEATABLE, by anyone.

Climatologists hide their results and have even claimed that their work not be repeatable, which renders their work nothing more than pseudo science.

NASA who can put a man on the moon and send probes to Mars. One slight miscalculation would send it floating in space forever. They support the idea of climate change. They are scientist who can hit the target in space. If it was pseudo science then they would not support it. It is the best available data, and deniers are the ones who use the same data to deny.

Oh dear there have been a number of NASA failures over the years, you sure forget them so easily.

 

[Kilroy2]

No one sai

As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

this was in a response to a letter that he sent to Trump to ignore climate change as it is not scientifically justified gosh where have we heard that before.

So who should he believe this one guy who is an MIT professor or the other 22 MIT professors.

in his letter he supposedly had 300 signatures from what he called imminent scientist and other qualified individuals. Which is the boys club of deniers who have made a life denying climate change. A review of the list had very few true scientist and a majority of people in other fields that believe what he believes.

People are free to believe what they want and they are smart enough to persuade Trump as he his certainly know his science.

Ooooohh, who should we believe...Darwin....or all the others?

Einstein...or all the others?

Wegener......or all the others?

Copernicus....or all the others?

Hmmmmm, looks like "all the others" have a long, long, looooong history, of being wrong.

At the end of the spectrum here are a list of guys you probably never heard of who had theories and were wrong.

Fleischmann-Pon's Nuclear Fusiion

The Blank Slate

Einstein's Static Universe

even Einstein got it wrong

Martian Canals were thought to be real but turns out they were just an optical illusion

Spontaneous generation was something Aristotle though off but was wrong.

A theory of science can be debunked

But it won't be debunked by the minority unless they can prove it to the majority.

Scientist will accept change if the data shows it as such

So if repubs want to pull a Telsa then go for it.

The list goes on. yes sometime they do get it wrong. But its not because of public opinion or because the right wants to believe.

If it is proven wrong then it is wrong. Right now climate change is the consensus. If someone was to come up with a way to debunk it then it will be debunk. That is science. It is not a political thing that politicians or bloggers can even understand. So far they haven't. debunk climate chance. If a person wants to get on the denial side , then that what they believe. It still does mean it was debunk it.

Overwhelming facts debunk it not overwhelming denial

Aristotle wasn't a scientist, nor had the scientific method been developed.

What is one of the primary requirements of the scientific method?

All results must be REPEATABLE, by anyone.

Climatologists hide their results and have even claimed that their work not be repeatable, which renders their work nothing more than pseudo science.

NASA who can put a man on the moon and send probes to Mars. One slight miscalculation would send it floating in space forever. They support the idea of climate change. They are scientist who can hit the target in space. If it was pseudo science then they would not support it. It is the best available data, and deniers are the ones who use the same data to deny.

Oh dear there have been a number of NASA failures over the years, you sure forget them so easily.

Yet you seem to forget the successes and want to focus on the negatives. Didn't Trump suggest going to Mars. Indicates even Trump has faith in NASA. Still this is about scientific consensus and not the individual.

The ability to collect relevant information and data and who can do that. The ability to gather, synthesize, and draw conclusions from vast amount of information NASA has a lot of scientists.

People have different opinions about vaccinations, fluoride in water. If personal opinions mattered then nothing would get done.

Consensus

Scientific Consensus is the collective beliefs of the many and the ability to sort thru the data and draw a conclusion. It is not a popularity contest and there will always be deniers.

At this point in time the conclusion is known. If you want to disagree, no one is stopping you. Because there is a conclusion does not mean that it will not change when additional relevant data is introduced. It will evolve over time.

Believe in something shouldn’t shape your opinion at all. It’s one of the most valuable traits we possess as human beings.

 

[westwall]

No one sai

As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

this was in a response to a letter that he sent to Trump to ignore climate change as it is not scientifically justified gosh where have we heard that before.

So who should he believe this one guy who is an MIT professor or the other 22 MIT professors.

in his letter he supposedly had 300 signatures from what he called imminent scientist and other qualified individuals. Which is the boys club of deniers who have made a life denying climate change. A review of the list had very few true scientist and a majority of people in other fields that believe what he believes.

People are free to believe what they want and they are smart enough to persuade Trump as he his certainly know his science.

Ooooohh, who should we believe...Darwin....or all the others?

Einstein...or all the others?

Wegener......or all the others?

Copernicus....or all the others?

Hmmmmm, looks like "all the others" have a long, long, looooong history, of being wrong.

At the end of the spectrum here are a list of guys you probably never heard of who had theories and were wrong.

Fleischmann-Pon's Nuclear Fusiion

The Blank Slate

Einstein's Static Universe

even Einstein got it wrong

Martian Canals were thought to be real but turns out they were just an optical illusion

Spontaneous generation was something Aristotle though off but was wrong.

A theory of science can be debunked

But it won't be debunked by the minority unless they can prove it to the majority.

Scientist will accept change if the data shows it as such

So if repubs want to pull a Telsa then go for it.

The list goes on. yes sometime they do get it wrong. But its not because of public opinion or because the right wants to believe.

If it is proven wrong then it is wrong. Right now climate change is the consensus. If someone was to come up with a way to debunk it then it will be debunk. That is science. It is not a political thing that politicians or bloggers can even understand. So far they haven't. debunk climate chance. If a person wants to get on the denial side , then that what they believe. It still does mean it was debunk it.

Overwhelming facts debunk it not overwhelming denial

Aristotle wasn't a scientist, nor had the scientific method been developed.

What is one of the primary requirements of the scientific method?

All results must be REPEATABLE, by anyone.

Climatologists hide their results and have even claimed that their work not be repeatable, which renders their work nothing more than pseudo science.

NASA who can put a man on the moon and send probes to Mars. One slight miscalculation would send it floating in space forever. They support the idea of climate change. They are scientist who can hit the target in space. If it was pseudo science then they would not support it. It is the best available data, and deniers are the ones who use the same data to deny.

Oh dear there have been a number of NASA failures over the years, you sure forget them so easily.

Yet you seem to forget the successes and want to focus on the negatives. Didn't Trump suggest going to Mars. Indicates even Trump has faith in NASA. Still this is about scientific consensus and not the individual.

The ability to collect relevant information and data and who can do that. The ability to gather, synthesize, and draw conclusions from vast amount of information NASA has a lot of scientists.

People have different opinions about vaccinations, fluoride in water. If personal opinions mattered then nothing would get done.

Consensus

Scientific Consensus is the collective beliefs of the many and the ability to sort thru the data and draw a conclusion. It is not a popularity contest and there will always be deniers.

At this point in time the conclusion is known. If you want to disagree, no one is stopping you. Because there is a conclusion does not mean that it will not change when additional relevant data is introduced. It will evolve over time.

Believe in something shouldn’t shape your opinion at all. It’s one of the most valuable traits we possess as human beings.

"At this point in time" all the global warming supporters have is computer derived fiction. There is not one piece of empirical data to support their claims. Feel free to provide ONE.

 

[mamooth]

"At this point in time" all the global warming supporters have is computer derived fiction. There is not one piece of empirical data to support their claims. Feel free to provide ONE.

The temperature record. Duh.

The stratospheric cooling.

The increased backradiation.

The decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG emission bands.

All of those are directly measured, no models at all, and all are smoking guns for AGW. The stunning success of the models is just icing on the cake.

We know you're a pseudoscience crank, because your theory can't be disproved. I've asked denies over and over what could disprove their cult beliefs, and gotten crickets every time.

In stark contrast, I've listed many things that could disprove the real climate science. AGW theory is falsifiable in many ways, because it's real science.

 

[mamooth]

Let's go over this again.

In a new paper,

A paper that

1. Assumes an absurdly low climate sensitivity, one already debunked by reality.

2. Repeats the "DERP CO2 follows temp!" argument.

3. Goes off on wildly political rants.

4. Makes the absurd claim that polar amplification isn't a thing.

I'd never seen political rants in a supposed scientific paper before. Lindzen broke new crank ground there.

Tommy won't address any of that. The debunking of his crank propaganda remains unchallenged.

 

[Kilroy2]

NASA is not only interested in space but the Earth as well. It spends over a billion dollars a year studying the earth and have access to multiple satellites orbiting the earth collecting data. They have scientist on the ground and flights to collect data. Since the 1970 they have been making observations and collecting data on the climate of the home planet for the purpose of studying climate change.

If they support climate change and they have the data to make that determinations and they have scientists, then it not really a issue. People can disagree. So if you disagree what is your proof? You can look at NASA's collection of data and sort thru it if you have the time.

Scientific consensus is what is known at this point in time and it may or may not change in the future.

 

[Sunsettommy]

NASA is not only interested in space but the Earth as well. It spends over a billion dollars a year studying the earth and have access to multiple satellites orbiting the earth collecting data. They have scientist on the ground and flights to collect data. Since the 1970 they have been making observations and collecting data on the climate of the home planet for the purpose of studying climate change.

If they support climate change and they have the data to make that determinations and they have scientists, then it not really a issue. People can disagree. So if you disagree what is your proof? You can look at NASA's collection of data and sort thru it if you have the time.

Scientific consensus is what is known at this point in time and it may or may not change in the future.

Translation: I have no cogent argument to make, just keep posting consensus bullshit like a lemming.

 

[Kilroy2]

NASA is not only interested in space but the Earth as well. It spends over a billion dollars a year studying the earth and have access to multiple satellites orbiting the earth collecting data. They have scientist on the ground and flights to collect data. Since the 1970 they have been making observations and collecting data on the climate of the home planet for the purpose of studying climate change.

If they support climate change and they have the data to make that determinations and they have scientists, then it not really a issue. People can disagree. So if you disagree what is your proof? You can look at NASA's collection of data and sort thru it if you have the time.

Scientific consensus is what is known at this point in time and it may or may not change in the future.

Translation: I have no cogent argument to make, just keep posting consensus bullshit like a lemming.

was that an argument you posted. Sounds like another denial. Do you denial that NASA supports the notion of Global warming with their research?

come on denial it. Show me your proof?

Its not my problem if you do not understand scientific consensus and refuse to acknowledge data that NASA has collected.

They do collect data of rising sea levels. But I can understand you never heard of rising sea levels and what the relationship it is to climate change.

 

[Sunsettommy]

NASA is not only interested in space but the Earth as well. It spends over a billion dollars a year studying the earth and have access to multiple satellites orbiting the earth collecting data. They have scientist on the ground and flights to collect data. Since the 1970 they have been making observations and collecting data on the climate of the home planet for the purpose of studying climate change.

If they support climate change and they have the data to make that determinations and they have scientists, then it not really a issue. People can disagree. So if you disagree what is your proof? You can look at NASA's collection of data and sort thru it if you have the time.

Scientific consensus is what is known at this point in time and it may or may not change in the future.

Translation: I have no cogent argument to make, just keep posting consensus bullshit like a lemming.

was that an argument you posted. Sounds like another denial. Do you denial that NASA supports the notion of Global warming with their research?

come on denial it. Show me your proof?

Its not my problem if you do not understand scientific consensus and refuse to acknowledge data that NASA has collected.

They do collect data of rising sea levels. But I can understand you never heard of rising sea levels and what the relationship it is to climate change.

Your very first post you make was to make an unsourced quote:

As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

Since you didn't post a link, it is useless.

Fail #1

===

When I make this obviously correct statement:

Oh dear there have been a number of NASA failures over the years, you sure forget them so easily.

You went on a rampage with gibberish, never actually addressing what I said:

"Yet you seem to forget the successes and want to focus on the negatives. Didn't Trump suggest going to Mars. Indicates even Trump has faith in NASA. Still this is about scientific consensus and not the individual.

The ability to collect relevant information and data and who can do that. The ability to gather, synthesize, and draw conclusions from vast amount of information NASA has a lot of scientists."



Some of those scientists you who had all the relevant data still botched a couple Mars missions, therefore they can make mistakes and make false conclusions.

Fail #2

I made the reasonable observation:

Translation: I have no cogent argument to make, just keep posting consensus bullshit like a lemming.

You came back with more incoherent babble: "was that an argument you posted. Sounds like another denial. Do you denial that NASA supports the notion of Global warming with their research?

come on denial it. Show me your proof?"

You make irrational statements, such as "scientific Consensus".... Gee you really believe in that bullshit?

Consensus declarations/positions have been wrong..... many times, wrong because they are political in nature based on a crowd of opinions. I have been making a fool of Dagosa in another thread who tries very hard to ignore consensus failures, you are another plebe who will ignore well documented consensus failures too because you lack critical thinking skills.

And Mamooth who also tries hard to ignore consensus failures

Your consensus arguments are stupid and doesn't drive science, only reproducible research can do that.

Fail #3

 

[Old Rocks]

No Tricks Zone

MIT’s Dr. Lindzen Pokes Fun At The ‘Naïve’, Well-Funded ‘Scientific Reasoning’ That 1 Factor – CO2 – Controls Climate

By Kenneth Richard on 15. June 2020

Excerpt:

In a new paper, atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen summarizes the “implausible” claims today’s proponents of dangerous anthropogenic global warming espouse.

Dr. Richard Lindzen retired several years ago, and yet his immense contribution to the atmospheric sciences lives on. His research is still cited about 600 times per year.

Lindzen recently published another scientific paper (Lindzen, 2020) in The European Physical Journal criticizing the current alarmism in climate science. Here are a few of the highlights.

LINK

=====

Not hard to make fun of warmist/alarmists infatuation of CO2, a molecule they must be sniffing for their high.....

Richard Lindzen, an outspoken climate contrarian and retired Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, sent a letter last month to President Donald Trump urging him to pull the United States out of the United Nations' climate change regime because global climate action is "not scientifically justified."

After MIT's climate researchers and faculty found out, they wrote their own open letter to the president, setting the record straight.

"As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

The MIT staff addressed specific inaccuracies in Lindzen's letter, including his assertion that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."

"The risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide are almost universally agreed by climate scientists to be real ones," they wrote. "These include, but are not limited to, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increases in extreme flooding and droughts, all with serious consequences for mankind."

Climate Contrarian Gets Fact-Checked by MIT Colleagues in Open Letter to Trump - Inside Climate News

Sign up to receive our latest reporting on climate change, energy and environmental justice, sent directly to your inbox. Subscribe here. This story was updated on March 7 to include a statement from Richard Lindzen. Richard Lindzen, an outspoken climate contrarian and retired Massachusetts...

insideclimatenews.org

Lindzen also testified that tobacco was harmless. Did so in front of Congress. Cross his palm with enough cash, and he will say the moon is made of green cheese.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No Tricks Zone

MIT’s Dr. Lindzen Pokes Fun At The ‘Naïve’, Well-Funded ‘Scientific Reasoning’ That 1 Factor – CO2 – Controls Climate

By Kenneth Richard on 15. June 2020

Excerpt:

In a new paper, atmospheric physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen summarizes the “implausible” claims today’s proponents of dangerous anthropogenic global warming espouse.

Dr. Richard Lindzen retired several years ago, and yet his immense contribution to the atmospheric sciences lives on. His research is still cited about 600 times per year.

Lindzen recently published another scientific paper (Lindzen, 2020) in The European Physical Journal criticizing the current alarmism in climate science. Here are a few of the highlights.

LINK

=====

Not hard to make fun of warmist/alarmists infatuation of CO2, a molecule they must be sniffing for their high.....

Richard Lindzen, an outspoken climate contrarian and retired Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, sent a letter last month to President Donald Trump urging him to pull the United States out of the United Nations' climate change regime because global climate action is "not scientifically justified."

After MIT's climate researchers and faculty found out, they wrote their own open letter to the president, setting the record straight.

"As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

The MIT staff addressed specific inaccuracies in Lindzen's letter, including his assertion that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."

"The risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide are almost universally agreed by climate scientists to be real ones," they wrote. "These include, but are not limited to, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increases in extreme flooding and droughts, all with serious consequences for mankind."

Climate Contrarian Gets Fact-Checked by MIT Colleagues in Open Letter to Trump - Inside Climate News

Sign up to receive our latest reporting on climate change, energy and environmental justice, sent directly to your inbox. Subscribe here. This story was updated on March 7 to include a statement from Richard Lindzen. Richard Lindzen, an outspoken climate contrarian and retired Massachusetts...

insideclimatenews.org

Lindzen also testified that tobacco was harmless. Did so in front of Congress. Cross his palm with enough cash, and he will say the moon is made of green cheese.

You completely ignored post one article, thus your post isn't on topic at all.

Dr. Lindzen correctly states:

"carbon dioxide is not a pollutant"

Only stupid people like YOU think it is a pollutant, when it is specific part of the Photosynthetic cycle, that is essential for plant growth.

CO2carbon dioxide + 2H2Aelectron donor + photonslight energy → [CH2O]carbohydrate + 2Aoxidized electron donor + H2Owater

=====

Post one article remains unchallenged

 

[ReinyDays]

Pick one place on the surface of Earth ... explain how climate is changing there ... any point, any change ...

 

[westwall]

Pick one place on the surface of Earth ... explain how climate is changing there ... any point, any change ...

Pick any point on Earth. Pick any date from the past. Know what you will find?

The storms were worse in the past, it was hotter, then colder, then hotter, etc.

In other words the climate is always changing and right now is one of the nicest times to be living.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

NASA who can put a man on the moon and send probes to Mars. One slight miscalculation would send it floating in space forever. They support the idea of climate change.

I wonder if NASA ever gets any money to study climate change and how to "fix it"?

 

[ReinyDays]

NASA who can put a man on the moon and send probes to Mars. One slight miscalculation would send it floating in space forever. They support the idea of climate change.

I wonder if NASA ever gets any money to study climate change and how to "fix it"?

I was wondering about Kilroy2's post ... the science of landing men on the Moon and probes on Titan is rather easy ... freshman physics ... it's the technology that is so difficult ... and NASA has some of the finest engineers in the world ... no doubt ... but we can calculate the thrust and force with a slide rule ... it's what aerospace engineers do well ...

It doesn't matter what they support if they have no expertise in the matter in question ... now does it? ...

 

[Kilroy2]

NASA who can put a man on the moon and send probes to Mars. One slight miscalculation would send it floating in space forever. They support the idea of climate change.

I wonder if NASA ever gets any money to study climate change and how to "fix it"?

I was wondering about Kilroy2's post ... the science of landing men on the Moon and probes on Titan is rather easy ... freshman physics ... it's the technology that is so difficult ... and NASA has some of the finest engineers in the world ... no doubt ... but we can calculate the thrust and force with a slide rule ... it's what aerospace engineers do well ...

It doesn't matter what they support if they have no expertise in the matter in question ... now does it? ...

But they do. You fail to understand that since about 1960's they have been actively involved in studying the earth. Some of the satellites that they have launched are looking at the earth. specifically. Studying it and collecting data on the Earth from above. which includes climate. Yes some probes are sent to look and study objects in space. The problem is you have to stay away from the right wing sites

Moon is easy now but it took trial and error to become better at it. The failure paved the way to success. I also mention Mars. It is not easy but they will probably get better at it.

Still NASA has had more successes than other countries. India and Israel has had failed attempts in 2018 and 2019 just launching probes to the Moon. US last part success and part failure was in 1994.

Its not as easy as you say it is. Nasa success is partly due to so many attempts that eventually helped them become good at it. In the 60's they had significant failures. They learned and now it seems they are hitting the target. Still the point is it took them 30 years to get that point and that is just to the moon which is closer.

1999
Mars Probe Lost Due to Simple Math Error. NASA lost its $125-million Mars Climate Orbiter because spacecraft engineers failed to convert from English to metric measurements when exchanging vital data before the craft was launched, space agency officials said Thursday.

Landing on Mars is still hard | EarthSky.org

There's a reason space engineers describe landing on Mars as

earthsky.org

.

 

[Kilroy2]

NASA who can put a man on the moon and send probes to Mars. One slight miscalculation would send it floating in space forever. They support the idea of climate change.

I wonder if NASA ever gets any money to study climate change and how to "fix it"?

They do get money to study the earth which does include climate change.