MIT Professor Richard Lindzen on Climate Sensitivity

[cancel2 2022]

Classic lecture by Dick Lindzen on climate sensivity, it is truly brilliant and informative.

[cancel2 2022]

Anybody that wants to understand climate science should watch this video.

[Stretch]

Anybody that wants to understand climate science should watch this video.

I'm glancing in here every few minutes in between calls (I'm working right now), but already made a note to watch that.

[cancel2 2022]

I'm glancing in here every few minutes in between calls (I'm working right now), but already made a note to watch that.

Here is a much shorter video to start with!

[Stretch]

Here is a much shorter video to start with!

I swear my mind is going to explode from this man's calm rational logic. How refreshing.

[cancel2 2022]

I swear my mind is going to explode from this man's calm rational logic. How refreshing.

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.

https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/l...se-of-commons/

[cancel2 2022]

I'm glancing in here every few minutes in between calls (I'm working right now), but already made a note to watch that.

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.

[archives]

Classic lecture by Dick Lindzen on climate sensivity, it is truly brilliant and informative.

So much for the "brilliance" and "informative"

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/0...t-donald-trump

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/...ving-in-magic/

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic...rd_Lindzen.htm

https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwur...resident-trump

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

[cancel2 2022]

So much for the "brilliance" and "informative"

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/0...t-donald-trump

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/...ving-in-magic/

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic...rd_Lindzen.htm

https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwur...resident-trump

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

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

[archives]

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

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/environm...nge-scepticism

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ard_S._Lindzen

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Ske...-familiar.html

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

http://archive.boston.com/news/scien...ent_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

[cancel2 2022]

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/environm...nge-scepticism

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ard_S._Lindzen

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Ske...-familiar.html

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

http://archive.boston.com/news/scien...ent_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

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/b...ally-dangerous

[archives]

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/b...ally-dangerous

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/20...U2N/story.html

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/...is-dishonesty/

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/s...issenters.html

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/...r_just_deluded

https://thinkprogress.org/lindzen-de...-c931eeb2ecf6/

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/12...understanding/

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

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot...-credible.html

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

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...;s-lecture.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#4dd454d651f0

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...een-lie/59709/

[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.

[Nordberg]

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.

[cancel2 2022]

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.

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/sc...l-warming/amp/