|
Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist — This has been waiting to get posted. I thought everyone was in agreement? Hmmm.
In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.
Hah, Hah. I got your model right here!!!!
Good thing changing one’s mind based on the evidence is the dogma of science?
What the current word on acid rain?
Nooooooo, Al Gore still needs another mansion!
The only one who doesn’t know this already is Jägermeister.
#4–Ah Yea==well, I don’t think Misanthropic Scott will be too happy about this either. He may have to up the carrying capacity of the earth to 400 Million People. Very un-misanthropic forces are at play!!
The sociology of science. Hah, hah.
What is this guy drinking/injecting/taking???
I really would like to know, because I want some too!
iV SAID BEFORE, THAT THERE ARE more GASES in our air then CO2 and oxygen, and what OTHER chemicals are causing a problem.. and NO ONE CARED or answered.
This guy is obviously a republican shill, a creationist, and bought by the oil industry.
And what kind of school is…? oh wait
Yes, pedro.
Misanthropic and Jägermeister may need some time to cry in their beers for a while.
I just wonder why our great and wonderful Obama is going to do?
I am betting that he will continue to sell out our country.
Why are we still listening to shills from the oil and coal industry on the subject of climate change?
This guy charges oil and coal companies $2500/day for his conslutting services.
I can’t imagine how that might change one’s opinion.
http://tinyurl.com/ylrzth7
Further, this is just an editorial … from a corrupt scientist.
#5 – bobbo,
Not nice to talk about me before I even comment on the thread. Seriously though, I thought you knew enough to check sources. I’m surprised to see you so convinced by an editorial from a coal and oil employee.
#6 – Nugget Coombs,
What is this guy drinking/injecting/taking???
I really would like to know, because I want some too!
He’s taking $2500/day. It’s not bad for a professor. As a full time job, it would be $500K/yr, though I have no idea how many days per year he gets work from oil and coal. Still though, I bet it makes a nice little supplement to his salary.
Science is like statistics, anything can be demonstrated or denied with the proper presentation of ‘facts’. This is particularly true of highly complex fields where little is known. What we got here is an egghead demonstrating how clever he is by expressing his arguments in a convincing way. This doesn’t necessarily make it true. There are a lot of clever people making clever and convincing arguments, most of them are of an opposing view point. In a void of information with such powerful interests involved, and with the world possibly at the brink of some ecological disaster, it may be wise to go with the consensus.
#12–Scott==glad you are up and had at least one cup of Joe?
So he’s a shill huh? ((Poor ol’ Aflie doesn’t even know what the 3 ad hominems mean, I guess they are “non-bibblical” references.))
Well==who knows????? “The Model” == how accurate does it need to be to become accepted as true? Seems the last 5-6 years of global cooling really ought to be “in the model” or is that variable just noise? Is noise mystery calling for faith???
Just to affirm my falling off the wagon a year ago or so===I became agnostic on this when I discovered that the first few climate models did not include water vapor because they were “too hard to model.” After severe criticism, they added the water vaper ((computing power catching up with available funding???)) and low and behold==new calculations showed no changes to any predictions. Struck me as “fishy.” So, I say: “Who Knows.”
We should still stop polluting so all the sticky issues remain.
And CONTRA all the above about thermometers in parking lots and ice fields growing or shrinking in other areas, isn’t a key measure the volume of the ocean===and hasn’t it been slowly growing year after year???? That sounds like proof of global warming to me.
Let the shills start creating their own charts now.
BTW, did anyone notice how even corrupt shills for the coal and oil industries are changing their tune.
First it was “warming isn’t happening”.
Then it was “warming isn’t human caused.”
Now it seems to be “warming is real and human caused, but not quite as bad as the
legitimatemainstream climate scientists who are not bought by oil and coalIPCC says it is.Hmm… The article really does say, at a minimum, climate change is real and human caused.
And, this in a non-peer-reviewed editorial from a corrupt shithead.
Yes Ah_Yea, I will be crying in my beer about the way stupid humans are going to destroy much of the biosphere despite the fact that we can see it happening and are allegedly intelligent enough to do something about it.
I guess the emphasis on this is allegedly. Stoopid Hoomans reminding me why I’m misanthropic.
Sea Rise here, kinda interesting:
http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2009/08/google-maps-of-sea-level-rises.html
#13–amodedoma==you say: “Science is like statistics, anything can be demonstrated or denied with the proper presentation of ‘facts’.” /// How like Alfie, HEY ALFIEEEE!!!!!! you are, completely NOT understanding science at all. Well established “facts” cannot be fudge around with. New theories/constructs still being contested? Different story.
I wonder what you think “science” really is???? A big book with all the “facts” written down????
Ha, ha. Ejected from Eden you are.
Just follow the money:
“Consulting fees and Funding sources of other organizations
According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper’s Magazine, Lindzen “… charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[28] was underwritten by OPEC.”[29][30] However, according to Alex Beam in a 2006 article in the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that although he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from “fossil-fuel types” in the 1990s, he had not received any money from these since.[31] Lindzen has elsewhere described the Gelbspan allegation as a “slander” and as “libelous.”[32][33]
Lindzen has contributed to think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from ExxonMobil.[30]”
What the right wing science neophytes don’t get is Global Warming is a generic term for climate change. Global warming is the cause and dropped temperature an effect.
According to scientists (not church quacks), the Atlantic Gulf Stream normally acts like a conveyor belt to deliver warm tropical water to temperate regions. Greenland and Europe dropped by 6 to 15 degrees for over 200 years, according to ice core data following the huge flood in the Hudson Bay region of Quebec and Ontario with cooled fresh water.
By adding so much cold fresh water in such a short time (melting glaciers), the flood shut down the Gulf Stream.
So before the right loonies rejoice that we won’t sweat to death but rather freeze to death, I recommend we stop shitting in the bubble we unfortunately share.
Bobbo,
Your first post addresses the entire problem of the “carbon footprint” discussion. We have serious pollution problems that impact the health of living thing on this planet, from mercury poisoning to nano-particle problems. I think the global warming and climate change debate is a great diversionary tactic to take the attention off of POLLUTION. I am neutral on this topic because we need to be addressing pollution of our planet…
#20–ethanol==yea verily. I’m impressed by the growing number of kiddies with asthma and other “sensitivities.” Evidently, Darwin is at work selecting those who can live best in their own shit.
Like ethanol from the grape?
So, we can’t just clean up the crap because it is pollution, we REQUIRE a reason to do it and they picked Climate Change? Can’t we just clean it up because its bad for all LIVING THINGS? regardless of WHO/WHAT made it? Its bad air, its pollution and chemicals and death….yet we need JUSTIFICATION to police up our own mess….
The facts will not interfere with the mission of Global Warming fanatics.
climateprogress.org/2009/03/09/richard-lindzen-heartland-denier/
This proves it! We should do nothing and just go on our merry way. I will buy back the hummer I traded in and turn on my lights all night long.
Thank you Dennis. If “science” keeps harping that the cause of some generic and poorly understood problem like GW is caused by something very very specific (CO2), and that theory is later debunked, the entire theory loses plausibility. If we’d just stick with that we know, and stop trying to introduce boogeymonsters into the arguments for cleaning up the environment, maybe more would get done. I bet you don’t have to argue GW to the citizens of, say, Shanghai; they’ve got plenty of other motivation to clean up their air, I’m sure.
In any case, I think all this points to the continued need for more research into global climate studies. We don’t need more conclusions drawn, mind you, just more research.
This isn’t just an editorial. It is referring to the paper Lindzen & Choi 2009, which is peer reviewed. I’d like to see how other scientists respond. Lindzen has been wrong before, like other scientists. He no longer refers to his IRIS work, for example.
Whether Lindzen gets gas and oil company money is irrelevant when considering his scientific work, as opposed to his editorials or speeches. As long as he is releasing all of his data, methods, code, then it should be easy to replicate his work and say if it is correct or not correct, or something else. I don’t know if he has done that. Plenty of others in climate science do not do this, especially in the hockey stick papers I’ve seen.
Bobbo, the recent temperature flatline is taken as noise, and that 1998 is just an exceptionally warm year that is taking time to catch up to.
I take that levelling which was unpredicted, to mean the extreme warming scenarios put out by Joe Romm and others are not very likely. Perhaps 1-2C, but not 4,5,6.
Lindzen’s paper has to do with evaluating feedbacks. To get the high levels of warming, you need to have large feedbacks over the CO2 effect of 1C. Lindzen has taken a look at observations and compared them to model results and found some of the feedback levels to be off. He’s also found a serious difference in the types of feedback with regards to longwave and shortwave radiation, and says it represents a serious problem in the models.
The SPPI is jumping the gun in declaring that this is proof global warming is overstated. Seeing that editorial makes me think the paper will be found to be flawed.
How many times to skeptic sites have to jump on the latest research, and then have it retracted? Like Lindzen’s IRIS, or Christy’s satellite data?
Acid rain info for New England:
http://www.epa.gov/NE/eco/acidrain/trends.html
Wow, John, not only is this old news, its debunked news http://realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/
I don’t have to read the comments to know that the GW naysayers are jumping on this like its the latest and greatest scientific evidence.
Richard Lindzen is a long time skeptic who does get funding from Exxon-Mobil.
From: Obamaforever
To: pro climate-change people
To: bobbo (I don’t really have universal knowledge-I just think I do, said)
You pro climate-change people should find
solace in the fact that bobbo knows just as
much about climate-change as he does about
modeling (referring to the story about modeling
the 9/11 towers).
From: Obamaforever
To: Johnnie (aka John C. Dvorak)
Johnnie, you seem to like to pull anti-Climate-Change stories out of your ass.
So, Johnnie, please tell me if you think it is O.K. to BURN fossil fuels.
I think you need to spend more time vetting
your anti-Climate-Change stories.
As for Lindzen, just follow the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!