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

[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.....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.....

So what? Lindzen is a discredited joke who is now paid to lie to gullible fools like you. This is just another one of his silly lies.

 

[Kilroy2]

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.

 

[mamooth]

1989 was when Lindzen first predicted a climate sensitivity near zero. He's kept up that prediction. Since then, the climate has warmed strongly. His theory has been contradicted by the data, so his "Iris Effect" theory is wrong. That kills Point 1 in his paper, that clouds are controlling everything.

Point 2 was his claim that global warming can't be true because CO2 lags temperature. That's just flat out stupid on his part.

Point 3 was him spouting political conspiracy theories in a supposed science paper.

Point 4 was him denying the measured polar amplification.

It's a meandering Gish Gallup of a paper. Non-political papers stick to one topic, and don't bring politics into it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's a meandering Gish Gallup of a paper.

That is exactly what it is. And that's why it must be copy/pasted. I don't even the article's "compiler" (author is a stretch) could sum up the points and argue them, much less any cackling denier with only high school science under his belt.

Now, a rational person would see a dissenting scientist and wonder, "Where is his research? Why is he arguing in blogs and op-eds, and not in academic forums? Where are those replicating his methods and research, to show its merit? (Oh, right, they can't exist, since the first two items don't exist.)

But a denier will point at him and say, "MIT scientist!".... right after saying science and scientists cannot be trusted, of course.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ha ha, not a single true counterpoint was made, just scream and run.

His paper stand unchallenged here.

Cheers.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

 

[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?

The article remains unchallenged.

 

[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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

The article remains unchallenged.

So what? Who needs to challenge it? The burden all lies on the fraud Lindzen. That's what you dummies don't get.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

That is not a research paper. And yes, some of thos epoints are indeed plagiarized from blogs.

And read the IPCC report (as, clearly, the paid fraud Lindzen has not). It is a shameless lie that scoentists argue one factor controls the climate. But you gullible morons eat it right up.

 

[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.

That is not a research paper. And yes, some of thos epoints are indeed plagiarized from blogs.

And read the IPCC report (as, clearly, the paid fraud Lindzen has not). It is a shameless lie that scoentists argue one factor controls the climate. But you gullible morons eat it right up.

You are in total denial now, since I posted the paper that was originally published in a journal.

The article/paper remains unchallenged. Lindzen was an expert reviewer in the IPCC report years ago.. You are making a complete fool of yourself.

It is clear you are flailing around with desperate attacks against a paper you don't even try to counter at all, which is a typical response from a typically ignorant warmist/alarmists.

 

[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?

The article remains unchallenged.

So what? Who needs to challenge it? The burden all lies on the fraud Lindzen. That's what you dummies don't get.

Your irrational reply is all I need to know that YOU don't have a cogent reply to his paper, you KNOW you can't which is why you make personal attacks on the man, avoid what he man writes.

You are dumb as possible.

 

[mamooth]

The article remains unchallenged.

Except where I went through its main points and debunked them all.

The same thing happens every time. Your conspiracy cult pseudoscience always gets ripped apart, causing you to squeal out a proclamation of victory as a way to cover your tearful retreat.

Given how badly you suck at this, why do you keep trying? I think you want the humiliation, because it shows the other cultists how devoted to the cult you are.

 

[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.....

Dumb fuck, Lindzen is no longer with MIT. And his 'Iris hypothesis was falsified. Not only that, he testified before Congress that tobacco was not harmful. He has repeatedly whored out his credentials, and is no longer considered a credible scientist within the scientific community.

 

[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.....

Dumb fuck, Lindzen is no longer with MIT. And his 'Iris hypothesis was falsified. Not only that, he testified before Congress that tobacco was not harmful. He has repeatedly whored out his credentials, and is no longer considered a credible scientist within the scientific community.

A classic avoid the article gambit, because this warmist/alarmist fella has no viable argument to the posted article, which is why he makes a personal attack on the writer himself instead.

The Article remains unchallenged.

Cheers

 

[westwall]

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.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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.