Everything you ever wanted to know about "climate change" (Fermilab lecture)

[aways]

Given the sudden interest in climate change on this board, I invite you to listen to the 1-hour colloquium by Richard Lintzen given last year at Fermilab. It's somewhat technical, but generally accessible to non-scientists, and the 9-part series is reproduced below for your convenience. In the Introduction, he nicely explains the political motivation for climate change hysteria, while during the Q&A he does a good job of shooting down the challenges from the audience.

Enjoy.

[foxpaws]

Do you know how much Lindzen gets paid for denying global warming? Combine that with the fact that when you are part of just 3% of scientists who don't concur with the results of the other 97% of scientists, you get a lot of fame, glory, and attention. You are embraced by those who question the origin of global warming, or even more foolishly deny it all together.

Also - he is old (71) - there is a funny saying in science....

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grow up that is familiar with it.

I believe in this case, it is quite justifiable to question the motives of the presenter.

Is Richard S. Lindzen deliberately lying, or just deluded?

[bivenator]

While I haven't taken time to listen to his lecture, you seem to be employing the tired method of attacking the messenger instead of the message.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by bivenator

While I haven't taken time to listen to his lecture, you seem to be employing the tired method of attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Yes - with cause- if you read the accompanying article. Does monetary gain, and fame, along with a tendency of older scientists to hold onto aging, incorrect ideas give you cause to really look at the messenger -

The article I posted, along with many others, debunk Lindzen's ideas (I could post dozens if you wish - or just google "lindzen debunked"), but rather than a continuing litany of debunking, which is easy, perhaps it would be best to look at motivation as well.

When we look at guilt/innocence in a court of law we also look at motivation. I can post many articles debunking Lindzen, but would that be enough? Another nail in the coffin is to show why it is opportune for him to make the statements that he does.

[bivenator]

. But suggesting he is doing this for money or associations likely has cause and effect reversed.

The above is a quote from the article that you posted in your questioning of his motives.

[RWebb]

well, he has made a number of contributions in his field

I don't know what is wrong him -- maybe some age related thing (beyond what you note above), nor does anyone know for sure that his opinion has been purchased.

But saying crazy things does not help one's credibility. Things like:

1. cigarettes are safe

2. CFCs don’t deplete the ozone layer

[RWebb]

the nice thing about the scientific method tho is that eventually, motivation doesn't matter -- experiments disprove improperly motivated hypotheses

and, of course, that has happened numerous times with Professor Lindzen.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by bivenator

. But suggesting he is doing this for money or associations likely has cause and effect reversed.

The above is a quote from the article that you posted in your questioning of his motives.

whether it is reversed or not - that his clinging to old science then provided monetary gain - or he saw the fact that he could gain by supporting with the 'other side'- both lead to the same result - lining his pockets.

[aways]

Very disappointing, but predictable... Demonize the "opponent", don't deal with their arguments. Lindzen is arguably the most authoritative climate scientist in the country. Even the vast majority of his critics in the field would acknowledge that. To my knowledge no (even marginally reputable) scientist who believes in anthropogenic warming seriously accuses Lindzen of being "senile" or "paid off" for his take on climate change. Those who do are political hacks, and cult followers of Al gore. Stray off the political reservation, and prepare to be personally attacked. That's the the left... Their arguments are always the same: Accuse your opponent of being a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a bigot, etc. and in this case, senile and bought-off. End of discussion. It must be great to be a lefty. No arguments necessary, just an empty head and your religion.

[foxpaws]

As I stated aways - you just need to google Lindzen debunked to find out all the holes in his ideas... I have the argument close at hand... do you want me to paste 5,000 articles by 5,000 different people?

But, it goes beyond that then - because obviously piles of evidence that show that Lindzen is wrong won't sway you - correct?

So, then there is a question of why would he continue down this path - when it appears by all accounts that he is wrong - then we get into motive....

Or could it be he is just wrong - that is of course a possibility - that he is just blind to data...

When he states that there hasn't been any global warming in the last 20 years - and there is hard data that says just the opposite.

What causes it - that is very debatable - I don't think we will ever know exactly - there are so many variables. But to deny that it is happening - that is where he errs.

And this statement -
Lindzen is arguably the most authoritative climate scientist in the country.

Who says that? Some peer reviewed publication - they would know - Cato - probably not..

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by aways

... don't deal with their arguments...

hid arguments have already been dealt with - he was on one of the panels; they considered his (minority) views & rejected them - read all about it! if you want to

foxpaws even posted links to some popular articles on it

Lindzen is arguably the most "authoritative" climate scientist that holds his views - I will grant that. He is or was very well respected for his contributions.

I use "" above b/c as YOU should know - that sort of reliance on expertise is fine, but inferior to on-point experimental ev.

[aways]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

When he states that there hasn't been any global warming in the last 20 years - and there is hard data that says just the opposite.

Well, not quite.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

[aways]

Originally Posted by RWebb

hid arguments have already been dealt with - he was on one of the panels; they considered his (minority) views & rejected them - read all about it! if you want to

foxpaws even posted links to some popular articles on it

Lindzen is arguably the most "authoritative" climate scientist that holds his views - I will grant that. He is or was very well respected for his contributions.

I use "" above b/c as YOU should know - that sort of reliance on expertise is fine, but inferior to on-point experimental ev.

I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge Lindzen's credentials and are not out to demonize him to make a point. Just curious though, did you actually listen to the lecture I posted above? And if so, do you have any comments on specific points?

[RWebb]

no comments tonite

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by aways

Well, not quite.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

Quite
The observed increase in global surface temperatures is a manifestation of global warming. Warming has accelerated particularly in the past 20 years.

You do know that this could just becoming dueling articles...

Global warming in the last 20 years has led to a decline in crop yields resultlng in an annual loss of $5 billion, says FSE scholars Lobell and Field

The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening.

[aways]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Quite
The observed increase in global surface temperatures is a manifestation of global warming. Warming has accelerated particularly in the past 20 years.

You do know that this could just becoming dueling articles...

Global warming in the last 20 years has led to a decline in crop yields resultlng in an annual loss of $5 billion, says FSE scholars Lobell and Field

The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening.

>>>You do know that this could just becoming dueling articles...

Exactly. And this is precisely why There is NO consensus, as your side always tries to claim in order to shut down argument. Hardly the way science should be conducted. Given the distasteful, even fraudulent practices, exposed by the climategate emails, there is every reason to be skeptical of the warming alarmists.

[foxpaws]

My 'side' - really?

I am just on the side of 'err on the side of caution' - we destroy this planet, the choices we have are slim to well, actually the choices are none.

Would something bad happen if we cut our carbon emissions - nope... Will something bad happen if we continue down this same path of excessive carbon emissions - perhaps....

We have a history of unknowingly polluting, discovering we are polluting, putting off not polluting because we don't think it is really all that bad, and then we have to fix the massive problems that polluting caused. We have been pretty lucky - we were able to clean the rivers, clean up (somewhat) the air we breathe, keep people off the land that would kill them because it is toxic, but, should we gamble at getting lucky again?

You seem to think that history won't repeat itself, I sort of think it might - plus, can we 'fix' what we would 'break' in this case? This isn't like a burning river or a toxic waste dump...

[aways]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

My 'side' - really?

I am just on the side of 'err on the side of caution' - we destroy this planet, the choices we have are slim to well, actually the choices are none.

Would something bad happen if we cut our carbon emissions - nope... Will something bad happen if we continue down this same path of excessive carbon emissions - perhaps....

We have a history of unknowingly polluting, discovering we are polluting, putting off not polluting because we don't think it is really all that bad, and then we have to fix the massive problems that polluting caused. We have been pretty lucky - we were able to clean the rivers, clean up (somewhat) the air we breathe, keep people off the land that would kill them because it is toxic, but, should we gamble at getting lucky again?

You seem to think that history won't repeat itself, I sort of think it might - plus, can we 'fix' what we would 'break' in this case? This isn't like a burning river or a toxic waste dump...

None of the leftist hysterias of the past 50 years has come true, from Ehrlich's population bomb (where we'd all be starving by 2000), to the "coming ice age" in the mid 1970's, to the explosion of "heterosexual AIDS", to global warming (now climate change). It is precisely the fact that the climate change crowd has NOT made a convincing case, all the while assuring us that the "debate is over" that smacks of political motivation. And as for "no price being paid for assuming AGW is real... get real... there is a HUGE cost. I'm not prepared to destroy Western economies based on slim and questionable data in order to appease a group of enviro-leftists who have a grudge against capitalism and "Big Oil".

[Danimal16]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Yes - with cause- if you read the accompanying article. Does monetary gain, and fame, along with a tendency of older scientists to hold onto aging, incorrect ideas give you cause to really look at the messenger -

The article I posted, along with many others, debunk Lindzen's ideas (I could post dozens if you wish - or just google "lindzen debunked"), but rather than a continuing litany of debunking, which is easy, perhaps it would be best to look at motivation as well.

When we look at guilt/innocence in a court of law we also look at motivation. I can post many articles debunking Lindzen, but would that be enough? Another nail in the coffin is to show why it is opportune for him to make the statements that he does.

All you have to do is read the series of UN Reports that has been listed on this forum in numerous other discussions to see that the science wasn't settled from the very beginning due to limitations on the models etc. AND your very argument is the basis for those that hawk the fear of AGW as not only has it made many rich new companies and individuals but it has spawned a whole series of political power grabs in the form of new and unwise regulations.

[pksystems]

There really is a very simple solution to this CO2 problem.

We need to exterminate all life on earth, that breathes out CO2.

Problem solved.