MIT Professor Richard Lindzen on Climate Sensitivity

 
archives said:
So much for the "brilliance" and "informative"

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...l-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05...limate-is-pretty-close-to-believing-in-magic/

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwu...on-richard-lindzens-letter-to-president-trump

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Click to expand...

Pathetic, but not unsurprising. What I find the funniest thing is your previous criticism of the use of blogs, when that's exactly what you are doing here! Of course you're far too stupid, and uninformed, to realise that Skeptical Science is run by John Cook, he of the debunked 97% consensus study. Did you watch the video, of course not? Because it is way above your intellectual paygrade. Richard Lindzen is an intellectual giant who would never be troubled by mental pygmies like you. None of his critics are fit to lick his boots quite frankly.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
I'm glancing in here every few minutes in between calls (I'm working right now), but already made a note to watch that. ;)
Click to expand...

I will guarantee that not one of the JPP climate alarmists actually has even the vaguest handle on the basic science. If you watch the video in its entirety, you'll be a veritable expert compared to those Muppets.
 
Havana Moon said:
Pathetic, but not unsurprising. What I find the funniest thing is your previous criticism of the use of blogs, when that's exactly what you are doing here! Of course you're far too stupid, and uninformed, to realise that Skeptical Science is run by John Cook, he of the debunked 97% consensus study. Did you watch the video, of course not? Because it is way above your intellectual paygrade. Richard Lindzen is an intellectual giant who would never be troubled by mental pygmies like you. None of his critics are fit to lick his boots quite frankly.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
Click to expand...

And now more on the Flat Earthers credibility, the same guy who claimed smoking cigarettes doesn't cause lung cancer and who currently is at the Cato Institute

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...n/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Skeptic-arguments-about-cigarette-smoke-sound-familiar.html

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/23/credibility-up-in-smoke/

http://archive.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/

The guy is a quack, the Internet is full of sources debunking nearly everything he proclaims, you only believe him cause he is telling you everything you want to hear
 
archives said:
And now more on the Flat Earthers credibility, the same guy who claimed smoking cigarettes doesn't cause lung cancer and who currently is at the Cato Institute

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...n/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Skeptic-arguments-about-cigarette-smoke-sound-familiar.html

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/23/credibility-up-in-smoke/

http://archive.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/

The guy is a quack, the Internet is full of sources debunking nearly everything he proclaims, you only believe him cause he is telling you everything you want to hear
Click to expand...

Holy fuck you're a total imbecile, I have lost count of the number of stupid sods that have posted that exact same Dana Nuccitelli bullshit Guardian article to try to discredit Lindzen. Of course you do know that Nutterelli contributes to Skeptical Science don't you, climate alarmism is a small world, isn't it? I am surprised that you didn't post some other links to DeSmogBlog and Hot Whopper as well, that's the usual thing that people like you do.

Lindzen said that passive smoking is massively exaggerated and that is absolutely true. Even the WHO agrees with that, so don't bother posting any further as I have no time for fools like you, kindly fuck off.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/look-it-way/200907/is-second-hand-smoke-really-dangerous
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
I swear my mind is going to explode from this man's calm rational logic. How refreshing. :medit:
Click to expand...

Yes, climate alarmists are terrified to confront him as they know he'll destroy them. Here is the opening statement he gave in a seminar to the House of Commons back in 2012.

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
Click to expand...

https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/
 
Havana Moon said:
Yes, climate alarmists are terrified to confront him as they know he'll destroy them. Here is the opening statement he gave in a seminar to the House of Commons back in 2012.

https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/
Click to expand...

I'm going to continue reading more of this and other presentations of Lindzen's. His reasoned and uncomplicated way of speaking on these matters makes it easy to follow along and understand. His voice and delivery of teaching reminds me a lot of my grandfather who came from Germany, was a Lutheran minister and taught physics at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh (to pay the bills, LOL) back in the 20's and 30's. As a kid in the 50's and early 60's I use to love sitting and listening to him answer my science-type questions when we'd drive up in late summer from Miami to visit him and grandmum on their farm.
Thanks for these links.
 
I never get the argument. If global warming is happening and man is a cause, we should clean up and try and save the planet. That is good. If we are wrong and man is not causing it, we will have a cleaner less polluted and safer world. No matter what the facts are, we will have less pollution and less health problems .

Not cleaning up, for whatever reasons you are believing, is not a correct answer, no matter what the science is.
 
Nordberg said:
I never get the argument. If global warming is happening and man is a cause, we should clean up and try and save the planet. That is good. If we are wrong and man is not causing it, we will have a cleaner less polluted and safer world. No matter what the facts are, we will have less pollution and less health problems .

Not cleaning up, for whatever reasons you are believing, is not a correct answer, no matter what the science is.
Click to expand...

That is an argument which has been advanced many times but is truly bogus. It basically says let's open up the spending spigots and just throw money at the problem. I don't have time to explain why right now but suffice for you to read this.


https://climatechangedispatch.com/s...ormation-on-wildfires-and-global-warming/amp/
 
Nordberg said:
I never get the argument. If global warming is happening and man is a cause, we should clean up and try and save the planet. That is good. If we are wrong and man is not causing it, we will have a cleaner less polluted and safer world. No matter what the facts are, we will have less pollution and less health problems .

Not cleaning up, for whatever reasons you are believing, is not a correct answer, no matter what the science is.
Click to expand...

That is an argument which has been advanced many times but is truly bogus. It basically says let's open up the spending spigots and just throw money at the problem. I don't have time to explain why right now but suffice for you to read this.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/s...ormation-on-wildfires-and-global-warming/amp/
 
Havana Moon said:
That is an argument which has been advanced many times but is truly bogus. It basically says let's open up the spending spigots and just throw money at the problem. I don't have time to explain why right now but suffice for you to read this.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/s...ormation-on-wildfires-and-global-warming/amp/
Click to expand...


And this, why should so much money be thrown at wind power when it is could be far better directed at SMR nuclear development. Fortunately the UK government has finally woke and listened to true experts for once

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/nuclear-industry-sector-deal/
 
Havana Moon said:
Holy fuck you're a total imbecile, I have lost count of the number of stupid sods that have posted that exact same Dana Nuccitelli bullshit Guardian article to try to discredit Lindzen. Of course you do know that Nutterelli contributes to Skeptical Science don't you, climate alarmism is a small world, isn't it? I am surprised that you didn't post some other links to DeSmogBlog and Hot Whopper as well, that's the usual thing that people like you do.

Lindzen said that passive smoking is massively exaggerated and that is absolutely true. Even the WHO agrees with that, so don't bother posting any further as I have no time for fools like you, kindly fuck off.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/look-it-way/200907/is-second-hand-smoke-really-dangerous
Click to expand...

Nah, the guy ain't a quack, I think this makes close to twenty reviews of Lindzen all finding him demagoguing climate change, too many sources even for "moonie" to discredit, but if you are hearing what you want to hear, what difference does it make, he could be preaching the moon is made of blue cheese and they will still believe him

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...mate-change/86K8ur31YIUbMO4SAI7U2N/story.html

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01...laim-why-lend-credibility-to-this-dishonesty/

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/...te-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/is_richard_s_lindzen_deliberately_lying_or_just_deluded

https://thinkprogress.org/lindzen-d...playing-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6/

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/richard-lindzen-limited-understanding/

https://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-global-warming-154937

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/spencer-lindzen-happer-not-credible.html

https://johnquiggin.com/2006/04/23/credibility-up-in-smoke/

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...sion-papers/Critique-of-Lindzen's-lecture.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2014/02/27/the-unscientific-consensus/#4dd454d651f0

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709/
 
Nordberg said:
I never get the argument. If global warming is happening and man is a cause, we should clean up and try and save the planet. That is good. If we are wrong and man is not causing it, we will have a cleaner less polluted and safer world. No matter what the facts are, we will have less pollution and less health problems .

Not cleaning up, for whatever reasons you are believing, is not a correct answer, no matter what the science is.
Click to expand...

opportunity cost
It's a simple concept. You should look it up if you don't understand
 
archives said:
Nah, the guy ain't a quack, I think this makes close to twenty reviews of Lindzen all finding him demagoguing climate change, too many sources even for "moonie" to discredit, but if you are hearing what you want to hear, what difference does it make, he could be preaching the moon is made of blue cheese and they will still believe him

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...mate-change/86K8ur31YIUbMO4SAI7U2N/story.html

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01...laim-why-lend-credibility-to-this-dishonesty/

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/...te-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/is_richard_s_lindzen_deliberately_lying_or_just_deluded

https://thinkprogress.org/lindzen-d...playing-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6/

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/richard-lindzen-limited-understanding/

https://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-global-warming-154937

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/spencer-lindzen-happer-not-credible.html

https://johnquiggin.com/2006/04/23/credibility-up-in-smoke/

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...sion-papers/Critique-of-Lindzen's-lecture.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2014/02/27/the-unscientific-consensus/#4dd454d651f0

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709/
Click to expand...

Am I supposed to be impressed?
 
archives said:
Nah, the guy ain't a quack, I think this makes close to twenty reviews of Lindzen all finding him demagoguing climate change, too many sources even for "moonie" to discredit, but if you are hearing what you want to hear, what difference does it make, he could be preaching the moon is made of blue cheese and they will still believe him

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...mate-change/86K8ur31YIUbMO4SAI7U2N/story.html

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01...laim-why-lend-credibility-to-this-dishonesty/

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/...te-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/is_richard_s_lindzen_deliberately_lying_or_just_deluded

https://thinkprogress.org/lindzen-d...playing-dangers-of-human-caused-c931eeb2ecf6/

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/richard-lindzen-limited-understanding/

https://www.newsweek.com/truth-about-global-warming-154937

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/spencer-lindzen-happer-not-credible.html

https://johnquiggin.com/2006/04/23/credibility-up-in-smoke/

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...sion-papers/Critique-of-Lindzen's-lecture.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2014/02/27/the-unscientific-consensus/#4dd454d651f0

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709/
Click to expand...

I am impressed with your mastery of Google!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top