The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[Crick]

People of lesser intelligence overestimate their own intelligence and under estimate the intelligence of others. When you call people stupid because they won't agree with you it's a textbook example of that phenomenon. Your failure or inability to recognize that is further reinforcement.

Do you realize how closely you're matching the logic used to convict unpopular women of witchcraft 300 years ago?

 

[Crick]

What’s wrong with people like you? I’m being serious. Your so-called “scientists” were caught discussing how they falsify their data to make it look like Global Warming exists.

And here you sit promoting what you know to be a flat-out lie.

Because they were NOT discussing how they falsify their data.

 

[P@triot]

Because they were NOT discussing how they falsify their data.

It’s all right there in black & white for the world to see. That’s exactly what they were doing and you know it.

People like you are the absolute worst. You must be someone who makes money off of the “Global Warming” hoax so you’re committed to promoting it ‘til the end of time. Gross.

 

[ChemEngineer]

What’s wrong with people like you (Crook) ? I’m being serious. Your so-called “scientists” were caught discussing how they falsify their data to make it look like Global Warming exists.

And here you (Crook) sit promoting what you know to be a flat-out lie.

You're a winner, he's a loser. Don't spend any more time reading his garbage.

 

[ding]

Do you realize how closely you're matching the logic used to convict unpopular women of witchcraft 300 years ago?

No. I don't realize that. Please enlighten me.

 

[P@triot]

Facts matter…

The now-deceased Julian Simon, author of “The Ultimate Resource,” made a bet with Ehrlich in 1990 that the price of five natural resources would rise or fall over the next 10 years. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten.

Simon was right on all five. They all fell in price. Ehrlich was all wrong, as usual. But Simon was never contacted by NBC. As he asked us in 1990, “How many times does a ‘prophet’ have to be wrong before he stops being a prophet?” The answer: “Nobody at CBS or NBC cares about the truth.”

Like all “Global Warming” scam-artists, they don’t care about the truth. But the truth matters. Facts matter.

 

[Crick]

Facts matter…

Like all “Global Warming” scam-artists, they don’t care about the truth. But the truth matters. Facts matter.

Ehrlich was a biologist, not a climate scientist and his big issue was overpopulation, not global warming. I agree he was an alarmist and I think he was yelling in the proper direction. But he sacrificed accuracy for effect. And of course the networks didn't need the embarrassment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and I think he was yelling in the proper direction. But he sacrificed accuracy for effect.

Like most "climate scientists" today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because they were NOT discussing how they falsify their data.

Here's a very interesting interview of Richard Lindzen by Jordan Peterson.
Lindzen didn't seem at all like a wild-eyed denier. It's about 110 minutes.
My link starts at about the 79 minute mark. Very interesting points about the
money pushing the direction of the research with no need for a world-wide
conspiracy of scientists.

 

[Crick]

Here's a very interesting interview of Richard Lindzen by Jordan Peterson.
Lindzen didn't seem at all like a wild-eyed denier. It's about 110 minutes.
My link starts at about the 79 minute mark. Very interesting points about the
money pushing the direction of the research with no need for a world-wide
conspiracy of scientists.

​

I will watch your video in a bit. Chores.

Third-party characterizations of Lindzen​

An April 30, 2012 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it's wrong science. I don't think it's intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, 'We're sure it's not a problem.' It's a special kind of risk, because it's a risk to the collective civilization."[71]

A 1996 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Jerry D. Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a "formidable opponent". William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as "courageous". He said, "A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing". He added that while he regarded some of Lindzen's views as flawed, he said that, "across the board he's generally very good". John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is".[3]

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now".[80] However, on June 8, 2005 they reported that Lindzen insisted that he had been misquoted, after James Annan contacted Lindzen to make the bet but claimed that "Lindzen would take only 50 to 1 odds".[81]

The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus.[82]

Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.[83][84][85] Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."[86]

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[87][88] When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)[89]), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to."[90] Again, when asked to clarify his position Lindzen wrote "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."[91]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

​

I will watch your video in a bit. Chores.

Third-party characterizations of Lindzen​

An April 30, 2012 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it's wrong science. I don't think it's intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, 'We're sure it's not a problem.' It's a special kind of risk, because it's a risk to the collective civilization."[71]

A 1996 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Jerry D. Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a "formidable opponent". William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as "courageous". He said, "A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing". He added that while he regarded some of Lindzen's views as flawed, he said that, "across the board he's generally very good". John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is".[3]

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now".[80] However, on June 8, 2005 they reported that Lindzen insisted that he had been misquoted, after James Annan contacted Lindzen to make the bet but claimed that "Lindzen would take only 50 to 1 odds".[81]

The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus.[82]

Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.[83][84][85] Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."[86]

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[87][88] When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)[89]), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to."[90] Again, when asked to clarify his position Lindzen wrote "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."[91]

Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it's wrong science. I don't think it's intellectually honest at all."

Not like the AGW alarmists.....LOL!

did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound."

Feel?

"Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, 'We're sure it's not a problem.' It's a special kind of risk, because it's a risk to the collective civilization

Civilization survived a bit colder during the Little Ice Age, civilization thrived during the MWP, I'm sure we can survive a bit warmer now with all our advanced technology.

agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is".[3]

"I'm gonna be a happy idiot and struggle for the legal tender" Jackson Browne

 

[Crick]

Lindzen says that there is 100% agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that if you add some to the atmosphere it will cause some warming. Good to know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lindzen says that there is 100% agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that if you add some to the atmosphere it will cause some warming. Good to know.

Yup.

 

[Crick]

Yup.

Do you think that might have been too technical for the audience hereabouts?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you think that might have been too technical for the audience hereabouts?

Maybe for Dagosa.

 

[Crick]

Here's a very interesting interview of Richard Lindzen by Jordan Peterson.
Lindzen didn't seem at all like a wild-eyed denier. It's about 110 minutes.
My link starts at about the 79 minute mark. Very interesting points about the
money pushing the direction of the research with no need for a world-wide
conspiracy of scientists.

Lindzen makes the comment that once the government increased funding for climate research, climate scientists were coming out of the woodwork but that funding was predicated on agreeing with the "agenda" (I think he used that term). He doesn't provide any evidence of that. Examples perhaps?

I cannot accept that the money could push the direction - or more accurately the conclusions - of research to the extent of consensus that currently exists if those conclusions were not fully supported by the facts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lindzen makes the comment that once the government increased funding for climate research, climate scientists were coming out of the woodwork but that funding was predicated on agreeing with the "agenda" (I think he used that term). He doesn't provide any evidence of that. Examples perhaps?

I cannot accept that the money could push the direction - or more accurately the conclusions - of research to the extent of consensus that currently exists if those conclusions were not fully supported by the facts.

Lindzen makes the comment that once the government increased funding for climate research, climate scientists were coming out of the woodwork but that funding was predicated on agreeing with the "agenda" (I think he used that term).

Yes.

He doesn't provide any evidence of that. Examples perhaps?

You want him to post evidence that skeptics were getting less funding?

I cannot accept that the money could push the direction - or more accurately the conclusions - of research

Why not? The long march through the institutions pushed everything to the left, why not funding?
And it didn't "push" the conclusions, it only funded the conclusions they desired.

 

[Crick]

Lindzen makes the comment that once the government increased funding for climate research, climate scientists were coming out of the woodwork but that funding was predicated on agreeing with the "agenda" (I think he used that term).

Yes.

He doesn't provide any evidence of that. Examples perhaps?

You want him to post evidence that skeptics were getting less funding?

Evidence that the funders were directing research to support an agenda

I cannot accept that the money could push the direction - or more accurately the conclusions - of research

Why not? The long march through the institutions pushed everything to the left, why not funding?
And it didn't "push" the conclusions, it only funded the conclusions they desired.

Funding comes before conclusions.

And as several threads have recently illustrated, the IPCC had no problem using people that disagree with their conclusions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Evidence that the funders were directing research to support an agenda

Funding comes before conclusions.

If they only funded believers and not skeptics........

When you write up your grant proposal, they kinda know what conclusions you're
shooting for. And then there's the old, "Look what his last paper said".........

 

[Crick]

If they only funded believers and not skeptics........

When you write up your grant proposal, they kinda know what conclusions you're
shooting for. And then there's the old, "Look what his last paper said".........

And there are citation numbers and the peer reviewers. Did you read the rest of the Wikipedia article on Lindzen?

Climate sensitivity​

Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[9] Additionally, rising temperatures would cause more extensive drying due to increased areas of atmospheric subsidence. This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen's theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere.[46][47] Lindzen disputed this, claiming that the negative feedback from high-level clouds was still larger than the weak positive feedback estimated by Lin et al.[48]

Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted warming may be overestimated because of their handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, and all existing computer models assume positive feedback — that is, that as the climate warms, the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere will increase, leading to further warming. By contrast, Lindzen believes that temperature increases will actually cause more extensive drying due to increased areas of atmospheric subsidence as a result of the Iris effect, nullifying future warming.[3] This claim was criticized by climatologist Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who notes the more generally-accepted understanding of the effects of the Iris effect and cites empirical cases where large and relatively rapid changes in the climate such as El Niño events, the Ultra-Plinian eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and recent trends in global temperature and water vapor levels to show that, as predicted in the generally-accepted view, water vapor increases as the temperature increases, and decreases as temperatures decrease.[49]

Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[56]