MIT Professor Richard Lindzen on Climate Sensitivity

[sear]

"I think this makes close to twenty reviews of Lindzen all finding him demagoguing climate change" a #17

"The fact that somebody over-sells an idea doesn't make it a bad idea. It makes them a bad salesman." Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA ret)

One person "demagoguing climate change" does not invalidate the global scientific consensus on climate change.

"Am I supposed to be impressed?" HM #19

You probably were expected to be.
That's not because the ostensible "evidence" presented is logically persuasive.
It's because this one denier has his bias confirmed by it. And bias confirmation is a popular refuge to those confronted by inconvenient truth.

 

[cancel2 2022]

"I think this makes close to twenty reviews of Lindzen all finding him demagoguing climate change" a #17

One person "demagoguing climate change" does not invalidate the global scientific consensus on climate change.

"Am I supposed to be impressed?" HM #19

You probably were expected to be.
That's not because the ostensible "evidence" presented is logically persuasive.
It's because this one denier has his bias confirmed by it. And bias confirmation is a popular refuge to those confronted by inconvenient truth.

So Mr. Seer, can you explain what it is that I am denying? I don't discount that there is an anthropogenic signal but I do vehemently consider much of climate science to be gross exaggeration centred around the IPCC AR5 RCP8.5 scenario. Climate models are not evidence of anything other than to prove that they are, for the most part, pretty useless and no substitute for real empirical evidence.

Of course the real culprits are the triumvirate of the lazy media, environmentalists and disingenuous left wing politicians. They all have much to gain by pursuing their mutual circle jerk as Richard Lindzen correctly describes here.

 

[cancel2 2022]

One thing I must just say, arseholes like McSquawker say the Richard Lindzen is too old at 78 yet the father of AGW James Hansen is actually 77, one year younger!! He does campaign for more nuclear energy so he's not all bad.

 

[sear]

"So Mr. Seer, can you explain what it is that I am denying?" HM #22

Yes.
But I won't.
I will however inform you and others. The explanations are technical. And neither you nor I are technical experts in this scientific discipline.

While I appreciate the courtesy title of "Mr.", you have quoted me, but addressed "Mr. Seer".
My pseudonym is spelled with lower case, and only has one e.

If you can't even get my pseudonym right, how can we expect you to correctly assess something as complex as anthropogenic climate change?

"can you explain what it is that I am denying?" HM #22

You're denying the scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change.
If they predict sea level will rise one inch in the next century, but it actually rises one point five inches, would you call them wrong?

I deduce you are not a scientist.
One needn't become a scientist to "get it".

All one need do is study the discipline of science, understand that scientific quantification is numerical,
and understand how rigorous & tenacious scientific peer review is. If religion matched that standard wouldn't the last church, mosque, and temple would have been demolished centuries ago?

 

[cancel2 2022]

Richard Lindzen on the real reason for a carbon tax.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Yes.
But I won't.
I will however inform you and others. The explanations are technical. And neither you nor I are technical experts in this scientific discipline.

While I appreciate the courtesy title of "Mr.", you have quoted me, but addressed "Mr. Seer".
My pseudonym is spelled with lower case, and only has one e.

If you can't even get my pseudonym right, how can we expect you to correctly assess something as complex as anthropogenic climate change?

You're denying the scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change.
If they predict sea level will rise one inch in the next century, but it actually rises one point five inches, would you call them wrong?

I deduce you are not a scientist.
One needn't become a scientist to "get it".

All one need do is study the discipline of science, understand that scientific quantification is numerical,
and understand how rigorous & tenacious scientific peer review is. If religion matched that standard wouldn't the last church, mosque, and temple would have been demolished centuries ago?

You deduce wrong, I have an honours degree in chemistry.

I also understand the Arrhenius equation for CO2 climate forcing as well, namely ΔF[SUB]CO2[/SUB] = (5.35 W·m[SUP]–2[/SUP]) ln C/C0.

I spelt your ID as Seer in an ironic twist, sorry if you didn't get it!

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...-Sea-Ice-The-Real-Story&p=2528538#post2528538

 

[sear]

"I have an honours degree in chemistry." HM

From where? Cheerie O's university?

A diploma may be called a "sheep skin", but it's a piece of paper.

And regardless of whatever paper you have, you have demonstrated here a fundamental absence of understanding of science.

Our First Amendment protects your right to disagree with the scientific consensus.
But the evidence seems more than anecdotal to me.

The credible predictions were approximations. But according to what I've read of it, the predictions on such things as sea level rise are generally being exceeded.

There are also further indications:
- the wild fires in California and other Western States. One of them has been called the largest in recorded history.

- It may be affecting both hemispheres, as record drought has hit Australia.

Apart from survival of the human race, I have no dog in that fight.
In the part of New York I'm from, we are in the lee of two great lakes. We average over 100" of snow per year.
My drinking water well is 14' deep. And in decades of living here, it's never run dry.
I'm retired, collect Social Security & a pension.
Even if the most dire predictions of ACC occur as predicted, I'll have pushed multiple crops of daisies before it would have mattered. I have no children, and no wives. So this issue is immaterial to me personally. If it warms up here, it just shaves a little off my heating bill, and gives me a longer motorcycle season.

My agenda here is truth.
I'm not claiming technical expertise in this narrow scientific discipline.
But as a general proposition, if I'd wagered the cost of a round of drinks on ACC being basically true, or global conspiracy
I'll side with the consensus.

 

[cancel2 2022]

From where? Cheerie O's university?

A diploma may be called a "sheep skin", but it's a piece of paper.

And regardless of whatever paper you have, you have demonstrated here a fundamental absence of understanding of science.

Our First Amendment protects your right to disagree with the scientific consensus.
But the evidence seems more than anecdotal to me.

The credible predictions were approximations. But according to what I've read of it, the predictions on such things as sea level rise are generally being exceeded.

There are also further indications:
- the wild fires in California and other Western States. One of them has been called the largest in recorded history.

- It may be affecting both hemispheres, as record drought has hit Australia.

Apart from survival of the human race, I have no dog in that fight.
In the part of New York I'm from, we are in the lee of two great lakes. We average over 100" of snow per year.
My drinking water well is 14' deep. And in decades of living here, it's never run dry.
I'm retired, collect Social Security & a pension.
Even if the most dire predictions of ACC occur as predicted, I'll have pushed multiple crops of daisies before it would have mattered. I have no children, and no wives. So this issue is immaterial to me personally. If it warms up here, it just shaves a little off my heating bill, and gives me a longer motorcycle season.

My agenda here is truth.
I'm not claiming technical expertise in this narrow scientific discipline.
But as a general proposition, if I'd wagered the cost of a round of drinks on ACC being basically true, or global conspiracy
I'll side with the consensus.

So essentially you are appealing to authority aka argumentum ad verecundiam which is a logical fallacy. Cal Sagan said scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority, as authority has no place in science. He wrote of arguments from authority:
.

One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.

​

 

[cancel2 2022]

From where? Cheerie O's university?

A diploma may be called a "sheep skin", but it's a piece of paper.

And regardless of whatever paper you have, you have demonstrated here a fundamental absence of understanding of science.

Our First Amendment protects your right to disagree with the scientific consensus.
But the evidence seems more than anecdotal to me.

The credible predictions were approximations. But according to what I've read of it, the predictions on such things as sea level rise are generally being exceeded.

There are also further indications:
- the wild fires in California and other Western States. One of them has been called the largest in recorded history.

- It may be affecting both hemispheres, as record drought has hit Australia.

Apart from survival of the human race, I have no dog in that fight.
In the part of New York I'm from, we are in the lee of two great lakes. We average over 100" of snow per year.
My drinking water well is 14' deep. And in decades of living here, it's never run dry.
I'm retired, collect Social Security & a pension.
Even if the most dire predictions of ACC occur as predicted, I'll have pushed multiple crops of daisies before it would have mattered. I have no children, and no wives. So this issue is immaterial to me personally. If it warms up here, it just shaves a little off my heating bill, and gives me a longer motorcycle season.

My agenda here is truth.
I'm not claiming technical expertise in this narrow scientific discipline.
But as a general proposition, if I'd wagered the cost of a round of drinks on ACC being basically true, or global conspiracy
I'll side with the consensus.

My degree is from Lancaster University, if you must know!

 

[cancel2 2022]

So essentially you are appealing to authority aka argumentum ad verecundiam which is a logical fallacy. Cal Sagan said scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority, as authority has no place in science. He wrote of arguments from authority:
.

One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.

​

Richard Feynman said: “Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of Experts

 

[cancel2 2022]

From where? Cheerie O's university?

A diploma may be called a "sheep skin", but it's a piece of paper.

And regardless of whatever paper you have, you have demonstrated here a fundamental absence of understanding of science.

Our First Amendment protects your right to disagree with the scientific consensus.
But the evidence seems more than anecdotal to me.

The credible predictions were approximations. But according to what I've read of it, the predictions on such things as sea level rise are generally being exceeded.

There are also further indications:
- the wild fires in California and other Western States. One of them has been called the largest in recorded history.

- It may be affecting both hemispheres, as record drought has hit Australia.

Apart from survival of the human race, I have no dog in that fight.
In the part of New York I'm from, we are in the lee of two great lakes. We average over 100" of snow per year.
My drinking water well is 14' deep. And in decades of living here, it's never run dry.
I'm retired, collect Social Security & a pension.
Even if the most dire predictions of ACC occur as predicted, I'll have pushed multiple crops of daisies before it would have mattered. I have no children, and no wives. So this issue is immaterial to me personally. If it warms up here, it just shaves a little off my heating bill, and gives me a longer motorcycle season.

My agenda here is truth.
I'm not claiming technical expertise in this narrow scientific discipline.
But as a general proposition, if I'd wagered the cost of a round of drinks on ACC being basically true, or global conspiracy
I'll side with the consensus.

Science is totally disinterested in anecdotal evidence, that you don't know that indicates your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method.

 

[Nomad]

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.

And besides, you're doing a fine job of that all by yourself.

 

[Nomad]

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.

GTFOH, Stench.

Nobody believes that nonsense.

Nobody who was ever related to a dumbass like you ever taught physics anywhere.

Physical education, maybe...

 

[sear]

"So essentially you are appealing to authority aka argumentum ad verecundiam which is a logical fallacy." HM

No.
a) argumentum ad verecundiam is not merely acceptance of authority, but from an INAPPROPRIATE authority.

b) Generally as the ancients applied this, it was akin to asking a carpenter's opinion on a chemistry question. To get a sensible opinion on chemistry, ask a chemist, not a carpenter or a butcher.

c) It is not the authority of a single person that I argue.

As you have invoked ancient Latin logic standard (which I sincerely appreciate) I will remind you that:
c1) argumentum ad verecundiam is not ALWAYS false. It's merely that it's not necessarily always true.

c2) In human history, there have been multiple standards of authority. Troglodytes may have merely contended with the best fighter, the one that could impose his will on the others.
When religion came along, religion broadly, and the shaman, the religious leader became the criterion of truth, argumentum ad veracitum perhaps (not sure, I don't speak Latin).
But in ostensibly civilized (Westernized) 3rd millennium culture, the criterion of truth is science.
Whether science will be replaced in that role, I do not know. But I see no evidence of it any time soon.

c3) It's not argumentum ad verecundiam when it's not a person, but an entire suite of disciplines that are involved.
It's not merely climatology.
- It's oceanography.
- It's meteorology.
- It's chemistry.
- It's physics.
These and other disciplines corroborate the global consensus on ACC.

"Cal Sagan said scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority" HM

Interesting that you resort to argumentum ad verecundiam here. Dr. Carl Sagan's expertise was in astronomy, not ACC.
However, I too am a Sagan fan, and enjoyed his Pulitzer Prize winning book The Dragons of Eden very much.

I don't disagree with Sagan on this fine point.
But I don't rest my position on individual authority.

The traditional dichotomy is often presented as religion or science. Science is vastly, vastly bigger than one person; even though one person here or there, Newton & Einstein for obvious examples, hone our scientific understanding.

 

[Nomad]

MIT professor Richard Lindzen’s contrarian views about climate change, which have long provided the appearance of credibility to those who deny human activity is causing the planet to warm, have caused deep angst among his colleagues at the university’s vaunted program in atmospheres, oceans, and climate.

Now, the retired professor has spurred the rest of the program’s faculty to write a letter to President Trump rebutting Lindzen’s position that climate change doesn’t pose a threat worth addressing and informing him that their colleague doesn’t represent their views or those of the vast majority of other climate scientists.

In interviews, some of the professors accused Lindzen, who acknowledges accepting thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry, of “intellectual dishonesty” that has tarred their program.

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

Did you get that last part, Havana Loon.....?

...Lindzen, who acknowledges accepting thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry...

IOW, your boy is a WELL PAID OIL INDUSTRY SHILL who WHORES out his credentials to the highest bidder whose own MIT colleagues disavow their association with.

No wonder you admire him so much.

 

[sear]

" you don't know that " HM #31

Ah, but I do.
And I demonstrated that I do in #24:

"All one need do is study the discipline of science, understand that scientific quantification is numerical" s #24

So please tell us HM. In what way do you believe anecdotes are numerically quantifiable?

However:
even scientists can't entirely dismiss anecdote.
If a meteorologist predicts a sunny day, but while outdoors you are rained on, even if anecdotal, it's an indication the science-based prediction was in error.

If my personal observations, "anecdotes" if you prefer, contradicted ACC predictions, we could include that in the discussion.
But I was raised in the lower Hudson River valley, where the tide varied the water level by perhaps 5' or so. There's a rock formation there which I've observed for over half a century. I know where the high water mark is on it. And it's several inches higher today than it was in the 1950's.
Does it prove ACC.
No. Not in my opinion.

BUT !!

That and other observations I've made since childhood generally seem consistent w/ ACC.
I don't consider that proof. But I do consider it corroboration, because AHD says it is.


corroborate (ke-ròb´e-rât´) verb, transitive
corroborated, corroborating, corroborates
To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain. See synonyms at confirm.

[Latin corroborâre, corroborât- : com-, com- + roborâre, to strengthen (from robur, robor-, strength).]
- corrob´ora´tion noun
- corrob´ora´tive (-e-râ´tîv, -er-e-tîv) adjective
- corrob´ora´tor noun
- corrob´orato´ry (-er-e-tôr´ê, -tor´ê) adjective

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

 

[cancel2 2022]

No.
a) argumentum ad verecundiam is not merely acceptance of authority, but from an INAPPROPRIATE authority.

b) Generally as the ancients applied this, it was akin to asking a carpenter's opinion on a chemistry question. To get a sensible opinion on chemistry, ask a chemist, not a carpenter or a butcher.

c) It is not the authority of a single person that I argue.

As you have invoked ancient Latin logic standard (which I sincerely appreciate) I will remind you that:
c1) argumentum ad verecundiam is not ALWAYS false. It's merely that it's not necessarily always true.

c2) In human history, there have been multiple standards of authority. Troglodytes may have merely contended with the best fighter, the one that could impose his will on the others.
When religion came along, religion broadly, and the shaman, the religious leader became the criterion of truth, argumentum ad veracitum perhaps (not sure, I don't speak Latin).
But in ostensibly civilized (Westernized) 3rd millennium culture, the criterion of truth is science.
Whether science will be replaced in that role, I do not know. But I see no evidence of it any time soon.

c3) It's not argumentum ad verecundiam when it's not a person, but an entire suite of disciplines that are involved.
It's not merely climatology.
- It's oceanography.
- It's meteorology.
- It's chemistry.
- It's physics.
These and other disciplines corroborate the global consensus on ACC.

Interesting that you resort to argumentum ad verecundiam here. Dr. Carl Sagan's expertise was in astronomy, not ACC.
However, I too am a Sagan fan, and enjoyed his Pulitzer Prize winning book The Dragons of Eden very much.

I don't disagree with Sagan on this fine point.
But I don't rest my position on individual authority.

The traditional dichotomy is often presented as religion or science. Science is vastly, vastly bigger than one person; even though one person here or there, Newton & Einstein for obvious examples, hone our scientific understanding.

Ok, let's start with sea level then, Nils-Axel Morner, a Swedish sea level expert (former president of the INQUA Commission of Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution) states that oceans are not rising alarmingly, even NOAA says that the sea level rise is around 1.8mm per year or less than 6 inches by the year 2100. Wow, I am shitting myself about that!

https://www.thegwpf.com/nils-axel-morner-these-researchers-have-a-political-agenda/

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=170-161

 

[cancel2 2022]

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

Did you get that last part, Havana Loon.....?

...Lindzen, who acknowledges accepting thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel industry...

IOW, your boy is a WELL PAID OIL INDUSTRY SHILL who WHORES out his credentials to the highest bidder whose own MIT colleagues disavow their association with.

No wonder you admire him so much.

Holy shit, when discussing climate it is inevitable for some idiot to bang on about funding. There should be a law for it, like Godwin's Law and the Nazis. So here we have Gonad up for a right royal shellacking!! Funny how these people never consider funding from the likes of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club or from the Obama admin to be compromising.

Dirt money?

The issue of concern of Congressman Grijalva is funding from the Koch brothers and fossil fuel companies somehow contaminating Congressional testimony from scientists invited by Republicans to testify.

The reality is that fossil fuel money is all over climate research, whether pro or con AGW. Gifts of $100M+ have been made by oil companies to Stanford and Princeton. Anthony Watts notes the prominence of oil companies in funding the American Geophysical Union. The Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy take fossil fuel money . The UKMetOffice has stated that energy companies are major customers.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/25/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science/

 

[sear]

HM #37

You've changed the subject from validity to consequence.
Thus you have conceded validity. That concludes my participation in this line of discussion.

Enjoy the Perseid meteor shower which can be enjoyed Saturday through Monday nights, best viewing after midnight. Look to the Northeast, to the constellation Perseus.

 

[cancel2 2022]

HM #37

You've changed the subject from validity to consequence.
Thus you have conceded validity. That concludes my participation in this line of discussion.

Enjoy the Perseid meteor shower which can be enjoyed Saturday through Monday nights, best viewing after midnight. Look to the Northeast, to the constellation Perseus.

I fully intend to do that, if it isn't cloudy. As for the rest, sorry that you dislike being challenged but that's how science works. I would draw your attention to my signature, you'd do well to heed it.