Lindzen on Global Warming, once again

[Thales 0]

This is a talk Lindzen gave at CEI in late October. This is the fullest and most complete refutation of global warming I've seen, since it hits at the heart of the matter so directly. Lindzen is simply the best critic of AGW, because he's a top flight atmospheric scientist who is strongly grounded in the facts, and is far too smart to be taken by charlatans of any stripe.

The talk is about an hour long, but considering how dangerous the issue is to our freedoms it is time well spent.

I'll give the rest as a spoiler, since I'm guessing some of you would rather hear Lindzen speak in his own words, because he says some great things.

The graph he presents in part 2, at about 8 minutes in, with the pink fuzzy area around the temperature trend graph is something I'd never heard before. What it says is that the statistical error in temperature measurements is such that there is no discernible temperature trend since 1987.

His hardest hitting point, which has been publicized the last few months, is about the total radiation leaving the earth. This proves beyond a doubt that the GW models are all wrong, because they present a picture that is opposite to what the real world data shows. All of the assumptions about some big positive feedback are completely false.

Lindzen also makes a note that he doesn't call himself a "global warming skeptic", because the term "skeptic" gives those promoting AGW too much credit. They have no scientific foundation for the AGW position. Lindzen instead prefers to call himself an AGW "denier"!! How great is that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM8rSSuJ_wQ...feature=related

This talk should be given the widest possible distribution!

[Maarten 0]

Agreed completely. That talk is amazing and I would strongly encourage everyone to take the time to watch it. He both exposes the lack of scientific evidence underlying many public pronouncements and policies, as well as the actual models.

One thing that struck me was his comment that they basically already published the same (radiation) data in 2000, yet apparently no one bothered to change the models. It's bizarre to me that people cling to their beliefs so strongly that they simply ignore what reality says; at any point when your hypothesis is contradicted by the experimental data, you need to change it. That is one of the most basic principles of science, and any honest scientist should know that, and not simply change things around enough so that the data somehow still fits.

That simply puts global warming "science" into the same ballpark as marxist theories that were proven false time and time again, and its proponents simply changed their story enough so that the theory once again (sort of) fit history. I thought science was beyond that, but apparently there is enough government involvement distorting that to make that not true any longer.

[Joss Delage 0]

He is excellent. I still remember foundly his 2 oped's in the WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...tml?id=95000606

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

[alann 0]

Hey! Big surprise! Global Warming, that unstoppable juggernaut that will drown civilization, eradicate the polar bear, and incinerate the planet, appears, unaccountably, to have taken a "time out"! The "global temperature" appears to have remained the same or lower for the past 10 years in contradiction of the unimpeachable hockey stick model and the overwhelmingly unanimous (ignoring the dissenters) opinion of the IPCC. Who would have thought??

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,662092,00.html

Of course this does not change the consensus opinion that Global Warming is a disaster waiting to happen and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain coding in some tweaks to the climate change simulator to predict this. Remain in your seats while we rationalize and temporize and redefine "Global Warming" as "Climate Change" so we can attribute this lack of trend to a new trend of non-change change. Temperature is variable, right? All you deniers say that, right? So this lack of trend is a deviation from normal temperature, probably anthropogenic, and a cause for serious concern.

REPENT!!!

[Carlos 0]

Hey! Big surprise! Global Warming, that unstoppable juggernaut that will drown civilization, eradicate the polar bear, and incinerate the planet, appears, unaccountably, to have taken a "time out"! The "global temperature" appears to have remained the same or lower for the past 10 years in contradiction of the unimpeachable hockey stick model and the overwhelmingly unanimous (ignoring the dissenters) opinion of the IPCC. Who would have thought??

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,662092,00.html

Of course this does not change the consensus opinion that Global Warming is a disaster waiting to happen and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain coding in some tweaks to the climate change simulator to predict this. Remain in your seats while we rationalize and temporize and redefine "Global Warming" as "Climate Change" so we can attribute this lack of trend to a new trend of non-change change. Temperature is variable, right? All you deniers say that, right? So this lack of trend is a deviation from normal temperature, probably anthropogenic, and a cause for serious concern.

REPENT!!!

Along the same lines of reality not matching rhetoric, here's this giggle of the day:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/not-...r-his-new-book/

And not only do they airbrush in hurricanes, but they have some rotating the wrong direction in their respective hemispheres...

[Maarten 0]

I just found this on RCP.com. Apparently someone hacked into the British center for climate change and downloaded and posted a whole load of emails and documents. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have wanted them public... Just read it, it's worth the time and effort.

Global warming email leak

[alann 0]

I just found this on RCP.com. Apparently someone hacked into the British center for climate change and downloaded and posted a whole load of emails and documents. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have wanted them public... Just read it, it's worth the time and effort.

Global warming email leak

Heard about this this morning, but, thanks, Maarten! Some sneak peeks at the actual texts justifies excitement. What a bunch of slimeballs, these alleged "scientists" are. This won't stop the train, but it may slow it down enough for people who can still think to hear the evidence against AGW. Great!

[Carlos 0]

I just found this on RCP.com. Apparently someone hacked into the British center for climate change and downloaded and posted a whole load of emails and documents. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have wanted them public... Just read it, it's worth the time and effort.

Global warming email leak

Heard about this this morning, but, thanks, Maarten! Some sneak peeks at the actual texts justifies excitement. What a bunch of slimeballs, these alleged "scientists" are. This won't stop the train, but it may slow it down enough for people who can still think to hear the evidence against AGW. Great!

This is definitely an interesting development; I'm curious to see what all falls out of it.

[mweiss 0]

Me too. Already there are blogs discrediting the find and stating things like "every organization will have a few questionable e-mails, it's nothing, really." So far, the MSM hasn't picked up on this in my area. I doubt this will have much effect on the politics.

Al Gore's book illustration is a real gas!

[rtg24 0]

Me too. Already there are blogs discrediting the find and stating things like "every organization will have a few questionable e-mails, it's nothing, really." So far, the MSM hasn't picked up on this in my area. I doubt this will have much effect on the politics.

Al Gore's book illustration is a real gas!

Yup. It is almost impossible to get (irrational) people to change their minds. Especially when they already see themselves as unique and cutting edge and individual for promoting the cause that "everybody" ignores, for "seeing" the catastrophy before anybody else.

I am trusting in the momentum of the political establishment to stop any excess spending, however. And I look forward to seeing what happens to the carbon taxes etc. once the hoax is discovered and made public.

[Thales 0]

And concerning the newly discovered fraud at the University of East Anglia ...

Lord Monckton weighs in with a hard hitting article:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

excerpt:

The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud - for fraud is what we now know it to be - tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years - and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

and

What have the mainstream news media said about the Climategate affair? Remarkably little. The few who have brought themselves to comment, through gritted teeth, have said that all of this is a storm in a teacup, and that their friends in the University of East Anglia and elsewhere in the climatological community are good people, really.

No, they’re not. They’re criminals.

Emphasis mine.

[Arnold 0]

The 'warmests' keep asking for the 'deniers' to present their peer reviewed evidence. Why has it been so difficult to get a reputable and official counter establishment to demolish the unreliability of the premises behind the AGW theory? Even this morning, I heard claims of 2 meter sea level rises and 7 degree warming by the end of the century, along with the dismissal of the deniers, and their 'lack of evidence'. Is there no way of mounting a counter attack without being dismissed as unscientific? Surely an official petition by reputable scientists can't be that hard to gather, and then be laid before those who regard us as flat earthers.

[Maarten 0]

The problem is as they discuss in certain of the emails, that most journals aren't accepting papers that challenge the concensus; the reviewers and editors hold them back or refuse to publish them. So the scientific literature is very much biased in a lot of journals that publish on the subject.

But don't believe much of what you hear about the consensus, anyway. The media ENORMOUSLY overstates the conclusions of even the most flagrantly alarmist "scientific" reports written by the IPCC and other groups. When you actually read the papers and studies, even the alarmists don't claim half the things that most media outlets claim they say. They just take advantage of the reputation of the scientists and of the fact that most people won't bother to actually read the source material that's quoted (or don't have access to it).

[Thales 0]

The following backs up Maarten's point about the "peer review" process.

Tracinski has the following article on the issue:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...s_in_99280.html

excerpt:

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

So these guys are now shouting about "peer review" and that no longer has any clout in this situation.

Btw, Rush Limbaugh has really been hitting this issue hard this week. He's been very effective.

They're doing exactly what Ayn Rand said back in the 1970s. They are using the "prestige of science to scare people." They didn't care about the science, they just wanted the powerful prestige that comes with it.

[Arnold 0]

I appreciate the information, but still ponder why, in the free market of ideas, a conspiracy like this is so effective. A petition to all the news outlets, by reputable scientists should be enough to throw a spanner in the works. Certainly there are some outspoken scientists, but obviously their numbers don't hold sway. Are the others fearful?

[rtg24 0]

I appreciate the information, but still ponder why, in the free market of ideas, a conspiracy like this is so effective. A petition to all the news outlets, by reputable scientists should be enough to throw a spanner in the works. Certainly there are some outspoken scientists, but obviously their numbers don't hold sway. Are the others fearful?

It's a bit like AIDS. Once you're exposed to Objectivism, it will influence your life. Rejecting it will make you very uncomfortable.

The more the books get read, the better. I notice the Chinese premier is walking around with Adam Smith in his suitcase.

At some point, critical mass will be reached. If nothing else, the books will gather dust on Grandpa's bookshelf until little 13yo Tommy picks one up, intrigued by the strange cover...

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I appreciate the information, but still ponder why, in the free market of ideas, a conspiracy like this is so effective. A petition to all the news outlets, by reputable scientists should be enough to throw a spanner in the works. Certainly there are some outspoken scientists, but obviously their numbers don't hold sway. Are the others fearful?

It is the politicization of science.

Scientists depend on government grants for their existence and they are in no position to bite the hand that feeds them. The government pays the piper and calls the tune which, lately, has been man-made climate change. The government position has been supported and defended by the Old Media that shares the government's political agenda.

The main opposition has been reality. On that side are honest scientists -- I suspect it was an insider who hacked the emails -- and the New Media. Since reality is the winning side, I am happily watching the current battle play out, but I know my team is going to win.

[mweiss 0]

Betsy, I wish I shared your optimism. The US government is way too powerful to listen to its people. Unlike "people's power" in the Philippines, or even the riots in Argentina in 2000, the government in the US is super-powerful, possesses 'smart' weapons for neutralizing crowds, and the military brass are no longer moral, but fully compliant with the Leftist agenda today. Making matters worse, they are using foreign troops for domestic enforcement, which removes any possibility of conflict of interest (a US soldier wouldn't shoot his own parents, for example, but a Russian-born soldier, trained in the US would).

These battles will not happen on a grand scale, but in pockets of isolated incidents, spun by the media to make it look like the government were putting down dangerous 'terrorists' instead of freedom fighters. As taxes and government strangling of citizens rises, more citizens will 'crack' from having had enough, and put up armed resistance. But they will be neutralized and villianized by the local media. "Those whacko right-wing militia folks!"

[rtg24 0]

Betsy, I wish I shared your optimism. The US government is way too powerful to listen to its people. Unlike "people's power" in the Philippines, or even the riots in Argentina in 2000, the government in the US is super-powerful, possesses 'smart' weapons for neutralizing crowds, and the military brass are no longer moral, but fully compliant with the Leftist agenda today. Making matters worse, they are using foreign troops for domestic enforcement, which removes any possibility of conflict of interest (a US soldier wouldn't shoot his own parents, for example, but a Russian-born soldier, trained in the US would).

I disagree. If I had won US citizenship by serving, I would NEVER shoot an American. Unless of course he was guilty of high treason.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Betsy, I wish I shared your optimism. The US government is way too powerful to listen to its people.

As long as Congressmen, Senators, and the President have to stand for re-election and we have freedom of speech, the power of the government is limited. Remember the one-term Democratic presidents and the Congressional election of 1994.

[~Sophia~ 0]

Obama made a pledge on Wed:

The White House announced yesterday that the President would be attending the conference and will unveil plans for the US to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020. He will also say that the target will rise to 30% by 2025, and 42% by 2030.

Source

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Obama made a pledge on Wed:

The White House announced yesterday that the President would be attending the conference and will unveil plans for the US to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020. He will also say that the target will rise to 30% by 2025, and 42% by 2030.

We know what Obama's pledges are worth.

And if he fails to keep them, it's George Bush's fault.

[Thales 0]

Climate Scientist Dr. Tim Ball weighed in on this matter:

[mweiss 0]

rtg24, yes, YOU, as a rational being, would not raise a weapon against a US law-abiding family, but how many troops brought in from Eastern Europe would think the same? These troops are not naturalized US citizens, either. There's no sense of gratitude--they're here to do a job and that's it, from their perspective.

Betsy, sure, we will, as a nation, continue to vascillate between the two parties, but both parties are two sides of the same totalitarian coin, only differing in minor nuances of the same ugly objectives. Until we oust BOTH parties and have an intellectual renaissance, there won't be any better choices. The last 'decent' choice America had was Barry Goldwater. It's been a long time and no one of promising credentials is on the horizon.

[rtg24 0]

rtg24, yes, YOU, as a rational being, would not raise a weapon against a US law-abiding family, but how many troops brought in from Eastern Europe would think the same? These troops are not naturalized US citizens, either. There's no sense of gratitude--they're here to do a job and that's it, from their perspective.

Mercenaries, sure, but anybody I know who has received or will be likely to receive US citizenship, that I know of (including many Eastern Europeans, although the fact that they are traders or financiers makes them more likely to be rational) I think will think the same way. It is ironically those that have been here longest, in my experience, who most fail to appreciate what the USA are about.

But sure, if you want carnage and repression, mercenaries are the way forward.