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

[Sunsettommy]

Ha ha, not a single true counterpoint was made,

Haha, not a single research paper was published. Just a hit and run blog. Will we be featuring a powerpoint of this blog at the next IPCC?

No it is a publish paper at springerlink:

• Richard S. Lindzen

The European Physical Journal Plus volume 135, Article number: 462 (2020) Cite this article

• 116 Accesses
• 124 Altmetric
• Metricsdetails

Abstract
The nature of the climate system is reviewed. We then review the history of scientific approaches to major problems in climate, noting that the centrality of the contribution of carbon dioxide is relatively recent, and probably inappropriate to much of the Earth’s climate history. The weakness of characterizing the overall climate behavior using only one physical process, globally averaged radiative forcing, is illustrated by considering the role of an equally well-known process, meridional heat transport by hydrodynamic processes which, by changing the equator-to-pole temperature difference, also impact global mean temperature.

LINK

======

Not a blog at all, you that lazy to look up the link?

The article remains unchallenged.

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

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.


So 1 guy vs 22 other guys all from MIT. That is like a 99 percent consensus that he (linden) is a fraud with an audience.

My question is are you the political chick also because you really do sound like her?

Linden is just looking for a job in the Trump administration.

All I see here is another warmist/alarmist dodge of post one article.

Post one article remains unchallenged

 

[Sunsettommy]

Post a link to just one of these studies that show 97% agreement ... also please define "actively publishing climate scientists" ... we get a dozen publications every six hours here and none of them mention global warming ... but those are Atmospheric Scientists ... folks who graduated college ...

Why would there be a study that shows 97 percent agreement.
if most already agree on the topic


well post a link showing that it is not 97 % if you disagree and explain why.

What the exact number is not the issue. It the scientific consensus. If you do not believe in the scientific consensus then define scientific consensus and tell me why you disagree with it. Scientific consensus could be 70 percent and it is still a consensus. Focus on the exact number is like focusing on the exact number of people waiting in that line when it is obvious that there are a lot of people in line. So keep the line moving.

You say you get a dozen publication every six hours and none of them mention global warming. So what. this debate has been going on for years

lets get to significant stuff

let me ask do you deny the greenhouse gas theory? y or n

Do you deny that the earth is warming? y or n

Do you deny that CO2 has caused warming? y or n

You can't even answer a simple question....

Now you break out in a sweat trying to divert the discussion.....

It is clear you are a whore for consensus ideology.

You didn't ask a question, you just asked for proof. But proof would not matter to you as answering the 3 question blows your argument to pieces.
Seems you can answer three simple questions.

Be nice it not my fault your a denier and only seek what you already belief.

This what YOU avoided answering, it was posted by Reinydays:

Post a link to just one of these studies that show 97% agreement ... also please define "actively publishing climate scientists" ... we get a dozen publications every six hours here and none of them mention global warming ... but those are Atmospheric Scientists ... folks who graduated college ...

Why didn't you provide the link to one of the studies?

You appear to be lost in this thread....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your latest empty post is like all the others here, fails to challenge the paper.

Who needs to challenge the paper? Nobody. You still seem confused about how this works. And anyway, the entire thing is built on a false premise meant to fool morons like you: that scientists believe or claim what it is said they claim in your childish thread title. This guy is a paid liar who is paid to fool idiots like you.

Your latest empty post is like all the others here, fails to challenge the paper.

Post one article remains unchallenged.

Sorry idiot...nobody has to challenge this idiot article written to fool idiots like you.

As a demonstration:

Show me where in the IPCC that it is stated that one factor (CO2) controls climate.

See you in...never, because that is false. You have been fooled . Again. Because you are a gullible moron who knows less than nothing about this topic. And lindzen makes a nice living getting paid to get you morons worked up.

And there is your challenge: the article is idiotic, and you are a gullible idiot. Can you admit it is a pile of shit and discard it? There is your challenge.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why would there be a study that shows 97 percent agreement. if most already agree on the topic

well post a link showing that it is not 97 % if you disagree and explain why.

What the exact number is not the issue. It the scientific consensus. If you do not believe in the scientific consensus then define scientific consensus and tell me why you disagree with it. Scientific consensus could be 70 percent and it is still a consensus. Focus on the exact number is like focusing on the exact number of people waiting in that line when it is obvious that there are a lot of people in line. So keep the line moving.

You say you get a dozen publication every six hours and none of them mention global warming. So what. this debate has been going on for years

lets get to significant stuff

let me ask do you deny the greenhouse gas theory? y or n

Do you deny that the earth is warming? y or n

Do you deny that CO2 has caused warming? y or n

Here is your claim:

It is the 97 percent peer reviewed studies done by climate scientist (and not NASA) that global warming in the past century is extremely likely caused by human activity.

If you can't back it up ... then please withdraw it ... and, yes, there is a peer reviewed scientific paper in publication that makes this claim as well ... obviously you haven't read it and are clueless as to the parameters they used to get this number ... they counted a paper that doesn't mention climate change as a positive ...

Meaning 97% of climatologists either agree with climate change or chose to take no stand on the matter ... leaving the 3% computational fluid dynamicists to claim climate change is a fraud according to their numbers ...

Your claim ... you have to find the paper that backs your claim ... not me ...

let me ask do you deny the greenhouse gas theory? y or n
Do you deny that the earth is warming? y or n
Do you deny that CO2 has caused warming? y or n

Three "no"s ... I thought I already explained ... I'm a Climate Change Denialist of the Third Order ... 1] I agree the globe is warming ... 2] I agree man-kind's activities contribute to this effect ... however 3] I see great good coming of this, warming brings great benefit for humans and the environment, we stand at the dawn of a NEW GOLDEN AGE OF HUMANITY ... belch that CO2 suckers, I dare you ... cold sucks ... and you know it ... I'm so angry right now I'm going to go burn a tire ...

Do you think it's proven hurricanes are increasing in intensity or frequency?

Do you understand the effect of Arctic Amplification on the large scale circulation pattern? ... further, what do you think this will do to overall storm counts (i.e. turbidity)? ...

What's a "climate scientist"? ... climatology is a university degree program ... climate science is taught at community colleges and trade schools for the Environmental Science certificate required for some types of businesses ... septic pumping for one ...

 

[Kilroy2]

The consensus is know and if your as knowledgeable as you claim, you are aware of it.

you answered no to all three questions thus you agree that the planet is warming.

I see great good coming of this, warming brings great benefit for humans and the environment, we stand at the dawn of a NEW GOLDEN AGE OF HUMANITY

then obviously you do no need proof. If it is just an opinion then fine. You are in the minority. There is nothing that will change your mine as you see it as a new golden age of humanity. Yet the majority of scientist do not agree. Its a fact live with it. The consequences of to much warming are known. If man is contributing to this then it is man make activities that must change.

Too much lead in the environment affects human health. It was used in many thing by man. Children are vulnerable and they are the future. The use of it had to change. It did change with limiting it use in various products such as gasoline and in paint Man caused higher levels of lead in the environment which cause higher cases of lead poisoning.

Linden is a meteorologist. Fancy title for school but in the real word we know them as the weather girls on channel 6.

You say
What's a "climate scientist"? ... climatology is a university degree program ... climate science is taught at community colleges and trade schools for the Environmental Science certificate required for some types of businesses ... septic pumping for one

Well isn't R Lindzen a climate scientist

 

[ReinyDays]

The consensus is know and if your as knowledgeable as you claim, you are aware of it.

you answered no to all three questions thus you agree that the planet is warming.

I see great good coming of this, warming brings great benefit for humans and the environment, we stand at the dawn of a NEW GOLDEN AGE OF HUMANITY

then obviously you do no need proof. If it is just an opinion then fine. You are in the minority. There is nothing that will change your mine as you see it as a new golden age of humanity. Yet the majority of scientist do not agree. Its a fact live with it. The consequences of to much warming are known. If man is contributing to this then it is man make activities that must change.

Too much lead in the environment affects human health. It was used in many thing by man. Children are vulnerable and they are the future. The use of it had to change. It did change with limiting it use in various products such as gasoline and in paint Man caused higher levels of lead in the environment which cause higher cases of lead poisoning.

Linden is a meteorologist. Fancy title for school but in the real word we know them as the weather girls on channel 6.

You say
What's a "climate scientist"? ... climatology is a university degree program ... climate science is taught at community colleges and trade schools for the Environmental Science certificate required for some types of businesses ... septic pumping for one

Well isn't R Lindzen a climate scientist

Yet the majority of scientist do not agree. Its a fact live with it. The consequences of to much warming are known. If man is contributing to this then it is man make activities that must change.

Was there a poll taken? ... was each scientist sent a ballot, and did we take away their science license if they didn't respond? ... I don't think so, my friend, and you don't have a citation that backs up your claim they have ... besides, a majority of scientists aren't qualified to say ... why would a virologist take a full year of thermodynamics? ...

Nah, you're just making up this so-called "fact" ...

The consequences of "too much" warming are not known ... we have speculations, and we can program computers to model what we speculate ... but computers can only be programmed to give the answers they give ... and please define "too much" warming ... the IPCC gives 2ºC rise over 100 years then the rise levels off, which is consistent with temperature being proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration ... we can see that much variation day-to-day without any negative consequences ... what little there will be is easily mitigated ... simply add two feet to our sea walls covers all the sea level rise we expect by year 2100 ...

A bigger problem in our future is deforestation ... the East China Plain, Europe, the American Midwest ... enormous tracks of land clear-cut and converted to agricultural lands ... are you seriously suggesting we outlaw farming and let all the forests grow back? ... what's the total real estate value of Indiana alone? ...

I've never met R Linden ... I don't know how he/she self-identifies ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Idiot thread title and idiot article, based on a premise made for ignorant fools like the OP.

Oceanographers, solar scientists, geologists, biologists...all of them contribute their research findings to the IPCC.