Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

:sleeping:

Old ground.

But obviously needs repeating often, the facade painters will not give up no matter how clear the truth.

Maybe we need a shower or two of football sized hail stones.

 

[Knobby22]

Found it.
A Newsweek article.

'Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette. '

Note: he says climate change is occurring, like everyone else in his field, he is just saying it will be slower than predicted.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772/page/1

 

[wayneL]

But obviously needs repeating often, the facade painters will not give up no matter how clear the truth.

Maybe we need a shower or two of football sized hail stones.

1/ What clear truth? There is a hypothesis with conflicting data.

2/ What does a hail storm or two have to do with climate change? There have always been large hailstones.

 

[wayneL]

Found it.
A Newsweek article.

'Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette. '

Note: he says climate change is occurring, like everyone else in his field, he is just saying it will be slower than predicted.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78772/page/1

Excuse me?

That is not a direct quote, it is heresay; able to be spun in any way that is desired.

I want a quote and its context.

 

[Knobby22]

Yeah!

And I'm still waiting for an answer to this question. I want to see if it's true (even if irrelevant) or just another ad hominem slander.

Well since it was quoted in a reputable magazine Newsweek, can you find anywhere where he has denied it? You would think he would want to.
It seems to be common knowledge.

Of course not since he is paid by the coal lobbies. Independant science at its best. He has extensive links to the tobacco industry. He is a gun for hire, nothing else. If he is one of the heroes of the denialists, they better get another one.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

I like this bit.

Will he put his money where his mouth is?

He claimed to be willing to accept bets on the future climate during an interview with Reason magazine. Reason printed “Richard Lindzen says he's willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now.” When Annan approached him and tried to accept the bet Lindzen seemed to carry a different tune. The following is from James Annan’s personal website:

“Richard Lindzen will indeed accept a bet - but only if offered odds of 50:1 in his favour! He actually started out quoting 100:1 - but came down to 50:1 in what he described as a special favour to me. If the temperatures went down, I was to hand over $10,000, but in the event of a rise, I'd get a whopping $200. That's worth around
$8 per year on my pension. Whoop-de-doo

 

[Knobby22]

Here he is using his degree to relax EPA pollution standards. What a poster boy!

Richard Lindzen, Robert Bailing, William Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, Sherwood Idso -- scientists opposed to global warming issues, as cited by Peter Samuel. Kay H. Jones, Seattle, Washington pollution consultant, was formerly responsible for air quality analysis for the Council on Environmental Quality. Our city air has been getting steadily better and justifies a less demanding set of government rules and regulation.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/ScienceCop/comment.html?entrynum=36&tstamp=200606

 

[Knobby22]

Here he is as a witness for Philip Morris!!!

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025528294-8299.html

 

[wayneL]

Here he is as a witness for Philip Morris!!!

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025528294-8299.html

As far as I can see, he is only cited on that document as a scientist opposed to global warming.

There is still no quote, nor context.

 

[Knobby22]

As far as I can see, he is only cited on that document as a scientist opposed to global warming.

There is still no quote, nor context.

Come on, the emporer has no clothes.
He is disreputable.

 

[wayneL]

Well since it was quoted in a reputable magazine Newsweek, can you find anywhere where he has denied it? You would think he would want to.
It seems to be common knowledge.

Of course not since he is paid by the coal lobbies. Independant science at its best. He has extensive links to the tobacco industry. He is a gun for hire, nothing else. If he is one of the heroes of the denialists, they better get another one.

I find it stunning, after all that has happened in the last few months, with all the trashed credibility of the IPCC and associated scientists and pseudo-scientists, that you can sit there and type that with a straight face.

ROTFLMAO

Better get another tactic, the monumental hypocrisy is now exposed.

Pot
Kettle
Black

He may have things to say about tobacco, but context is everything.

You have done the despicable thing of condemning him without knowing the full facts.

You have no idea what his precise position is, just using the disgraceful and typical zealot tactic of (sans data and real science) character assasination.

Nice!

 

[Knobby22]

I find it stunning, after all that has happened in the last few months, with all the trashed credibility of the IPCC and associated scientists and pseudo-scientists, that you can sit there and type that with a straight face.

ROTFLMAO

Better get another tactic, the monumental hypocrisy is now exposed.

Pot
Kettle
Black

He may have things to say about tobacco, but context is everything.

You have done the despicable thing of condemning him without knowing the full facts.

You have no idea what his precise position is, just using the disgraceful and typical zealot tactic of (sans data and real science) character assasination.

Nice!

What, all the other scientists are being payed by the powerful non coal lobby?

It happens all the time. He did something slightly corrupt or was compromised in some way, they then offered him more and then when he said no the lobbyists said they would expose him.

After all, they would have argued, climate change needs critics and what about all your staff. And we we will pay you $500 a day as well as support all those people who rely on you. Just do what we say.

So he does.

I don't know how you can defend him. If someone from the other side was exposed you would be all over it.

 

[trainspotter]

Ummmmmm .... if the world is getting hotter (read climate hysteria) how is it that the U.S. just had their 3rd coldest winter on record? The United Kingdom just had their coldest winter in 31 years? Now before everyone flames this juxtaposition there is a case to be heard that Canada has just had it hottest and driest winter on record and Western Australia the same for it's summer.
The world is a kooky place. A rationale can be drawn for both sides of the argument. The jury is out from this quarter.

 

[wayneL]

I don't know how you can defend him. If someone from the other side was exposed you would be all over it.

Excuse me?

I'm not defending anybody. I am seeking facts in order to make a decision about the fellow.

If you're going to trash someone, you better have facts.

You have none.

 

[brty]

a reputable magazine Newsweek

In terms of science, much better than that disreputable rag "Nature" or "Scientific American" or "New Scientist".

Next will be reputable opinion quotes from "The Sun- Herald" in Melbourne.

From Dr Megan Clark...

We know that our CO2 has never risen so quickly

That's garbage, does she know what she is talking about?? Ohh hang on....

our CO2

What the hell is "our CO2"?? maybe it is different to atmospheric CO2 levels.

We are now starting to see CO2 and methane in the atmosphere at levels that we just haven't seen for the past 800,000 years, possibly even 20 million years," she said.

The science clearly shows that the last time CO2 levels were as high as now was between 15-20 million years ago, but temperatures were 3-6 degrees warmer and oceans were 25-40 metres higher than now, does she not know this?? If she does, then why say something different?? If she doesn't then why comment about climate at all???

brty

 

[roland]

The CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology today, both publicly announced their acceptance of measurable evidence of man induced climate change.

Collectively they expect a 2 degree warming in the Earth's temperature to occur over the next century.

Personally I have no problems in accepting their expectations and think in the future a move a little further to the south, or an increase in altitude of a couple of thousand feet should see out my lifetime before it becomes too much of a worry to me.

From a political point of view, I am more worried about the level of control over our lives and freedoms that future Governments, Global Climate Committees, United Nations etc. are all vying for.

 

[sneak'n]

sneak'n

I have to point out the red herring in the debate based on logic.

I would be grateful for your explanation of the "red herring", and even more grateful for your proof on the logic.

Based on this the views of many scientists, either way, should be heard. That is science. Proving disproving and questioning. I disagree that we have to follow research papers to be sustainable. (not to say that was said above)

I regret that I cannot make sense of this.
What is the point you are trying to make?

 

[sneak'n]

Yeah!

And I'm still waiting for an answer to this question. I want to see if it's true (even if irrelevant) or just another ad hominem slander.

You are full of double standards Mr L.
I ask you about the science and you simply refuse to respond.
Yet you want a reply on something that is a little off the topic (although of itself obliquely highly relevant), and then toss in the mandatory "ad hominem" nonsense that is in almost every reply to me (and I note to many others).
You are very, very weak on this topic and, like the poster in my earlier response, seem unable to work out why I mentioned Lindzen's oft quoted statement to a journalist (reported in the press) many years ago.
If you cannot work this out, then it is reasonably apparent why you have no intention of turning your mind to the science.
I was thinking of starting a thread on the morality and ethics of climate change denial, but this place is not suitable.

 

[derty]

From Dr Megan Clark...
That's garbage, does she know what she is talking about?? Ohh hang on....
What the hell is "our CO2"?? maybe it is different to atmospheric CO2 levels.

I assume she is referring to the planetary CO2. It is not unusual to refer to the oceans as 'our oceans' or the atmosphere as 'our atmosphere'. So where is the problem referring to the level of CO2 as 'our CO2'? Dr Clark also make no secret that she believes there is an anthropogenic component to the CO2 levels.

We are now starting to see CO2 and methane in the atmosphere at levels that we just haven't seen for the past 800,000 years, possibly even 20 million years," she said.

The science clearly shows that the last time CO2 levels were as high as now was between 15-20 million years ago, but temperatures were 3-6 degrees warmer and oceans were 25-40 metres higher than now, does she not know this?? If she does, then why say something different?? If she doesn't then why comment about climate at all???

brty

I don't see where her comments on atmospheric CO2 levels conflicts with what you have stated. If the levels are the highest they have been for 15-20 million years then the current levels are both a) the highest they have been for 800,000years and b) possibly the highest for the last 20 million years.

As for the 2nd part of your rationale. The proxies for CO2 measurement prior to around 800,000 years wont be giving you an annual or decadal resolution and once you get out to 15-20 million years you will be lucky to have temporal data points with a 10,000 year resolution and from the stomata proxy data that most of the middle Miocene studies are based on, a 1 million year resolution is good.

The rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 we have experienced in the last 200 years is well within the resolution of the Miocene studies. Now IF the radiative forcing attributed to CO2 by the scientific studies that the IPCC estimate is based on is close to the mark there will be a GRADUAL rise in global temperature. If that rise is only 1 degree C or so per century then in only 500 years you can get your 3-6 degrees warming. All this in the blink of an eye with respect to the data resolution of the Miocene studies.

She probably didn't mention all this as it is not relevant and not comparable to what she was saying.

As for commenting on climate change, WayneL summed it up nicely:
Pot
Kettle
Black.

 

[wayneL]

You are full of double standards Mr L.
I ask you about the science and you simply refuse to respond.
Yet you want a reply on something that is a little off the topic (although of itself obliquely highly relevant), and then toss in the mandatory "ad hominem" nonsense that is in almost every reply to me (and I note to many others).
You are very, very weak on this topic and, like the poster in my earlier response, seem unable to work out why I mentioned Lindzen's oft quoted statement to a journalist (reported in the press) many years ago.
If you cannot work this out, then it is reasonably apparent why you have no intention of turning your mind to the science.
I was thinking of starting a thread on the morality and ethics of climate change denial, but this place is not suitable.

You can wiggle and wriggle and twist and turn, but still no quote. Context is everything.

I say ad hominem so often because you people use it as a standard tactic.

You preach science, yet are unwilling to even consider Lindzen's points and crap on about some illusory quote on smoking.

On the science, I'm not going to write a thesis, but I have posted many links over the years, possibly as many as you rederob, yet you continuously deny that I do so. Possibly because you refuse to read them; that they will damage your faith.

My position on climate change (which despite your ignorant straw man claim as denialism, which it isn't) is based on my readings of the available science.

You seem unable to discern any science which contradicts your religious faith in AGW as science. You you understand how ridiculous that seems to people able to look to both views without bias? It's cultism, ironically, only common with people on the far left.

Your are getting more irrelevant to this discussion with every post, attempting to drag it backwards with petty jibes and retrograde debate.

I can only conclude that you are not interested in finding solutions to actual problems, instead there is some other malodorous political agenda at play.

 

[Sidamo]

One favourite argument of the anti-AGW crowd is that there has been no warming in the last decade. Interestingly, NASA published their end-of-year analysis of global temperature data a while back, which you can read here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+Report

It lists the Top 10 hottest years, in order, as 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2009, 2006, 2007, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997. It also states that the decade from 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record (since 1880), a full 0.54C hotter than the 20thC average. The 90's were next, 0.36C above the 20thC average.