Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

[homersapien 11,374]

Take this sentence: "You were talking about the paradox of specifying a certain mode of operation because that mode supposedly has the opposite of the intended effect." Once again you use fancy words with no substance or understanding. Yes that is what I was saying - and you have followed it with nothing but a well written sentence restating what I said. Good job.

Well, the "fancy part" is a matter of taste I suppose, but no "substance or understanding"??? You can't be serious.

And then you follow that with "yes, that is what I was saying." ?? Seems like you did understand it though, huh? After all it's your own fricken argument. :-\

Actually, what you were saying involved a story which involved the basic elements I covered in my description, I just added precision. Surely an engineer should appreciate that. Besides, verifying your opponents position is a standard practice in debate. It's saves time, and thus provides "substance".

Sorry if that I was a little too literate for you but I assumed you would be able to follow all them "fancy words", being an engineer and all. :-\

[homersapien 11,374]

Nothing specifies the total amount of CO2 a site can produce. True, They are given an allotment that they can meet - or better - or they they can exceed.

They can produce whatever they want but the government is just trying to make money off an avoidable side effect of making that computer you are sitting behind. False, its not a revenue program. In fact, it could work without generating any revenue.

My argument is that if this was TRUELY about the environment they would try to find a way to control the emissions before resorting to this tax system that will drive industry away. No you don't understand it. They are allowing industry complete freedom to either reduce their emissions or not, with the idea that industry can best optimize their options to reduce emissions.

But you are correct in that government is stepping in to assign a cost to pollution. But a "free market" capitalist system places no cost on pollution, does it. Is that really the way you would prefer to go?

This sentence: "That is the exact opposite of specific regulations telling a company how they should operate their processes." is just completely out of place and wrong. Limiting CO2 emissions tells a company how much they can make - because everything produces CO2. Supply goes down and prices go up, or they pay for the extra CO2 required to make the product to meet demand and we pay the difference. Well the idea is that competitive companies will reduce emission which will give them a huge competitive advantage if their competitors reduce production. And you can't deny that if we need to reduce CO2 emissions keeping it cheap by simply ignoring its costs is a very short sighted strategy. This is just a way to let the private sector create the technology instead of the government simply decreeing it. It provides the most flexibility.

All of this is beside the point - man made climate change is a hoax to tax businesses. I have yet to see one credible shred of any proof that man made - or any other type - of global warming exist that we should be afraid of. It is not the problem of one side to prove it doesnt exist - it has to be credibly proven first to even make an argument against global warming.

You know if I had jumped here first and read that sentence I would have saved myself a lot of time and trouble.

You're unteachable because your mind is made up. You have been politically brainwashed (also common with a lot of the engineers I have known)

"Not a shred of evidence" :-\

My God, what a fool I was to take you so seriously.

[AUcivE09 582]

Just beleive what you want Homer. If you think there is proof of GW out there - just fall in line with the rest of your kind. You want to talk about brainwashed..... :-\

[homersapien 11,374]

Just beleive what you want Homer. If you think there is proof of GW out there - just fall in line with the rest of your kind. You want to talk about brainwashed..... :-\

Presumably, as an engineer you belong to a professional engineering association of some sort. If so, you might have some idea of how conservative scientific associations are. They consider themselves to be the keepers of their professions integrity and credibility. They don't take position statements lightly.

Objection:

Global Warming is just a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government.

Answer:

Here is a list of "enviro-Nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science:

• NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) – http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
  
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) –http://www.ncdc.noaa...balwarming.html
  
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) –http://www.grida.no/...r/wg1/index.htm
  
• National Academy of Sciences (NAS) –http://books.nap.edu...ming/index.html
  
• State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) –http://www.socc.ca/p...st_future_e.cfm
  
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – http://epa.gov/clima...ange/index.html
  
• The Royal Society of the UK (RS) – http://www.royalsoc....age.asp?id=3135
  
• American Geophysical Union (AGU) –http://www.agu.org/s...e_position.html
  
• American Meteorological Society (AMS)–http://www.ametsoc.o...earch_2003.html
  
• American Institute of Physics (AIP) – http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
  
• National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) – http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
  
• American Meteorological Society (AMS) – http://www.ametsoc.o...tacademies.html
  
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) –http://www.cmos.ca/c...changepole.html
  

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. On top of that list, see also this joint statement [PDF] that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, a statement issued by

• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Bazil)
  
• Royal Society of Canada
  
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
  
• Academie des Sciences (France)
  
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
  
• Indian National Science Academy
  
• Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
  
• Science Council of Japan
  

You can also read this one that includes all of the above signatories plus the following:

• Russian Academy of Sciences
  
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  
• National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
  
• Australian Academy of Sciences
  
• Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
  
• Caribbean Academy of Sciences
  
• Indonesian Academy of Sciences
  
• Royal Irish Academy
  
• Academy of Sciences Malaysia
  
• Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
  
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  

But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you would find the opinion of some of the bastions of industry more convincing?

Exxon-Mobile, the largest oil company in the world has this public statement:

The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant, so it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world.

Chevron, a bit less non-commital, says:

At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) — mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane — in the earth’s atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.

18 CEO’s of Canada’s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Have the EnviroNazis finally seized the industrial reigns of power on top of infiltrating the UN, the science academies of the major nations and the top research institutes of North America? Somehow, I think that is just not too likely.

http://scienceblogs....g-is-just-hoax/

I am sure that all of the above will be very interested to know there's not a "shred of evidence" for AGW.

[AFTiger 282]

They are pretty stupid at MIT

Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions,” writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially “meaningless” claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. — creating an “Iron Triangle” of poor incentives.

“How can one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy?” Lindzen asks.

Lindzen compares global warming to past politicized scientific movements: the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union under Stalin. However, the MIT professor argues that global warming goes even beyond what these past movements in terms of twisting science.

“Global Warming has become a religion,” writes Lindzen. “A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint.”

“There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal,” he added.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/#ixzz2dSsRojur

[homersapien 11,374]

Ah yes, Richard Lindzen. Perfect example of the downside to tenure. But he's made a nice business of being a denier (which pays much better than acknowledging the actual science.) No surprise that a right wing site like "Daily Caller" would be touting him.

http://www.sourcewat...hard_S._Lindzen

Richard S. Lindzen

Background

His academic research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity.^[5] He has published numerous papers regarding meteorologic and atmospheric topics.^[6]

Fossil Fuel Interests Funding

In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).^[7]

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] 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,' was underwritten byOPEC."^[8]

A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."^[9]

Lindzen's Discarded Global Warming Arguments

An internal document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry^[10].

In a section on the "Role of Water Vapor", the GCC's Science and Technical Advisory Committee wrote that "In 1990, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT argued that the models which were being used to predict greenhouse warming were incorrect because they predicted an increase in water vapor at all levels of the troposphere. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the models predict warming at all levels of the troposphere. However, warming should create convective turbulence, which would lead to more condensation of water vapor (i.e. more rain) and both drying and cooling of the troposphere above 5 km. This negative feedback would act as, a "thermostat" keeping temperatures from rising significantly."

However, the GCC's science advisers noted that this argument had been disproven to the point that Lindzen himself had ceased to use it. "Lindzen's 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions at.the surface would lead to cooler, drier conditions at the top ofthe troposphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to find the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted. More recent publications have indicated the possibility that Lindzen's hypothesis may be correct, but the evidence is still weak. While Lindzen remains a critic of climate modeling efforts, his latest publications do not include the convective turbulence argument."^[11]

In conclusion the GCC's science advisers was that "Lindzen's hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."^[12]

Linzden's Betting Challenge on Global Warming

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."^[13]

On Tobacco

In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."^[14]James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the date relating smoking to helath problems, which was closely analagous to his views of climate data." ^[15]

Key Quotes by Lindzen

• "I think it's [concern about global warming] mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves." ^[16]
  

• Lindzen told the BBC that ExxonMobil was "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US" and that "they have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense."^[17]
  

• "To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science."^[18]
  

• On the term climate skeptic "Let me explain why I dont like it. You know to be skeptical assumes there is a strong presumptive case, but you have your doubts. I think were dealing with a situation where there's not a strong presumptive case."^[19]
  

• "There is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons." Lindzen speaking at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009).^[20]
  

Affiliations

Lindzen was a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center^[1], a Maryland-based think tank which had been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil^[21], but does not appear to have filed a tax return with the IRS since 2007. ^[1]

He is also on the Academic Advisory Council of the U.K.-based Global Warming Policy Foundation.^[22]

Actions

Signatory to Letters Opposing Action on Global Warming

• Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change ^[23][24]
  
• "Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations", December 13, 2007.^[25]
  

Speaker at events disputing climate change

Lindzen has been a keynote speaker at media events and conferences of a range of think tanks disputing climate change including the Heartland Institute^[26]and the Cooler Heads Coalition.^[27][28][29]

Also see:

http://www.skeptical...ard_Lindzen.htm

http://www.skeptical...ard_Lindzen.htm

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just beleive what you want Homer. If you think there is proof of GW out there - just fall in line with the rest of your kind. You want to talk about brainwashed..... :-\/>

Presumably, as an engineer you belong to a professional engineering association of some sort. If so, you might have some idea of how conservative scientific associations are. They consider themselves to be the keepers of their professions integrity and credibility. They don't take position statements lightly.

Objection:

Global Warming is just a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government.

Answer:

Here is a list of "enviro-Nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science:

• NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) – http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
  
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) –http://www.ncdc.noaa...balwarming.html
  
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) –http://www.grida.no/...r/wg1/index.htm
  
• National Academy of Sciences (NAS) –http://books.nap.edu...ming/index.html
  
• State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) –http://www.socc.ca/p...st_future_e.cfm
  
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – http://epa.gov/clima...ange/index.html
  
• The Royal Society of the UK (RS) – http://www.royalsoc....age.asp?id=3135
  
• American Geophysical Union (AGU) –http://www.agu.org/s...e_position.html
  
• American Meteorological Society (AMS)–http://www.ametsoc.o...earch_2003.html
  
• American Institute of Physics (AIP) – http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
  
• National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) – http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
  
• American Meteorological Society (AMS) – http://www.ametsoc.o...tacademies.html
  
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) –http://www.cmos.ca/c...changepole.html
  

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. On top of that list, see also this joint statement [PDF] that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, a statement issued by

• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Bazil)
  
• Royal Society of Canada
  
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
  
• Academie des Sciences (France)
  
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
  
• Indian National Science Academy
  
• Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
  
• Science Council of Japan
  

You can also read this one that includes all of the above signatories plus the following:

• Russian Academy of Sciences
  
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
  
• National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
  
• Australian Academy of Sciences
  
• Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
  
• Caribbean Academy of Sciences
  
• Indonesian Academy of Sciences
  
• Royal Irish Academy
  
• Academy of Sciences Malaysia
  
• Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
  
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
  

But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you would find the opinion of some of the bastions of industry more convincing?

Exxon-Mobile, the largest oil company in the world has this public statement:

The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant, so it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world.

Chevron, a bit less non-commital, says:

At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) — mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane — in the earth’s atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.

18 CEO’s of Canada’s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Have the EnviroNazis finally seized the industrial reigns of power on top of infiltrating the UN, the science academies of the major nations and the top research institutes of North America? Somehow, I think that is just not too likely.

http://scienceblogs....g-is-just-hoax/

I am sure that all of the above will be very interested to know there's not a "shred of evidence" for AGW.

I'd like to see more credible sources.

[telling tiger 156]

http://www.flatearthsociety.org

[homersapien 11,374]

I'd like to see more credible sources.

So would I.

[Weegle777 78]

I don't doubt that the earth warms AND COOLS, because it regulates itself constantly. I'm not disputing that. It's the excessive blame on CO2, and the financial impact on companies that I find funny. Why can't we all just try to be stewards of this planet without the freakout? This is not the absolute panic that so many people are making it out to be.

[homersapien 11,374]

I don't doubt that the earth warms AND COOLS, because it regulates itself constantly. I'm not disputing that. It's the excessive blame on CO2, and the financial impact on companies that I find funny. Why can't we all just try to be stewards of this planet without the freakout? This is not the absolute panic that so many people are making it out to be.

That's what called "whistling past the graveyard".

"Excessive" blame on CO2? So now you're an expert in the field? :-\

And I wouldn't sweat the "financial impact on companies" I should think you would be more concerned about the financial and real impact on humans world-wide. And dumping pollution into the ecosystem is not being a "good steward of the earth".

But hey, maybe it won't be so bad. And if it is, I'll be gone anyway.

[Grumps 3,704]

I don't see anyone saying that we should not be good stewards of the earth. The question is, to what lengths should we go to protect the earth. Should we ban everything that results in CO2 emissions? What about breathing? Clearly there are limits to what is reasonable to do to protect the environment without destroying humanity and the economy and our cultures. Have scientists determined the "proper" amount of man-made CO2 emissions? Has the government determined the proper dollar amount for exceeding that "proper" amount? Clearly these answers are "no." It is my personal belief that AGW is more political than scientific, but I still think that we need to be trying to figure out the risk/benefit of reducing "pollution."

[homersapien 11,374]

I don't see anyone saying that we should not be good stewards of the earth. The question is, to what lengths should we go to protect the earth. Should we ban everything that results in CO2 emissions? What about breathing? Clearly there are limits to what is reasonable to do to protect the environment without destroying humanity and the economy and our cultures. Have scientists determined the "proper" amount of man-made CO2 emissions? Has the government determined the proper dollar amount for exceeding that "proper" amount? Clearly these answers are "no." It is my personal belief that AGW is more political than scientific, but I still think that we need to be trying to figure out the risk/benefit of reducing "pollution."

AGW is not a political issue, it is a scientific one. How we respond is political.

That stuff before that was specious. "To what lengths should we go to protect the "earth" (environment)? Really? What's "plan B"?

[Grumps 3,704]

I don't see anyone saying that we should not be good stewards of the earth. The question is, to what lengths should we go to protect the earth. Should we ban everything that results in CO2 emissions? What about breathing? Clearly there are limits to what is reasonable to do to protect the environment without destroying humanity and the economy and our cultures. Have scientists determined the "proper" amount of man-made CO2 emissions? Has the government determined the proper dollar amount for exceeding that "proper" amount? Clearly these answers are "no." It is my personal belief that AGW is more political than scientific, but I still think that we need to be trying to figure out the risk/benefit of reducing "pollution."

AGW is not a political issue, it is a scientific one. How we respond is political.

That stuff before that was specious. "To what lengths should we go to protect the "earth" (environment)? Really? What's "plan B"?

Now see, there you go again. I was attempting to discuss what I consider to be an important issue and you intentionally try to stop the discussion. If you really want to turn this into a cute argument of semantics we can do that, but it is to he detriment of this forum. Regarding your only almost legitimate issue--What are you saying is Plan A? Are you implying that we should go to any length necessary to cut pollution? NO, you are not. Therefore, it is IMPERATIVE that someone decide to what degree we are willing invest our resources into cutting CO2 emissions (or whatever criteria you plan to use). You can stay on topic if you really try. I know you can do it!

[homersapien 11,374]

I don't see anyone saying that we should not be good stewards of the earth. The question is, to what lengths should we go to protect the earth. Should we ban everything that results in CO2 emissions? What about breathing? Clearly there are limits to what is reasonable to do to protect the environment without destroying humanity and the economy and our cultures. Have scientists determined the "proper" amount of man-made CO2 emissions? Has the government determined the proper dollar amount for exceeding that "proper" amount? Clearly these answers are "no." It is my personal belief that AGW is more political than scientific, but I still think that we need to be trying to figure out the risk/benefit of reducing "pollution."

AGW is not a political issue, it is a scientific one. How we respond is political.

That stuff before that was specious. "To what lengths should we go to protect the "earth" (environment)? Really? What's "plan B"?

Now see, there you go again. I was attempting to discuss what I consider to be an important issue and you intentionally try to stop the discussion. If you really want to turn this into a cute argument of semantics we can do that, but it is to he detriment of this forum. Regarding your only almost legitimate issue--What are you saying is Plan A? Are you implying that we should go to any length necessary to cut pollution? NO, you are not. Therefore, it is IMPERATIVE that someone decide to what degree we are willing invest our resources into cutting CO2 emissions (or whatever criteria you plan to use). You can stay on topic if you really try. I know you can do it!

Nothing I said was off-topic.

And "Plan A" is to try to avoid making the only earth we have uninhabitable.

But I give you credit from moving beyond "AGW is a hoax". That's real progress.

[Grumps 3,704]

I don't see anyone saying that we should not be good stewards of the earth. The question is, to what lengths should we go to protect the earth. Should we ban everything that results in CO2 emissions? What about breathing? Clearly there are limits to what is reasonable to do to protect the environment without destroying humanity and the economy and our cultures. Have scientists determined the "proper" amount of man-made CO2 emissions? Has the government determined the proper dollar amount for exceeding that "proper" amount? Clearly these answers are "no." It is my personal belief that AGW is more political than scientific, but I still think that we need to be trying to figure out the risk/benefit of reducing "pollution."

AGW is not a political issue, it is a scientific one. How we respond is political.

That stuff before that was specious. "To what lengths should we go to protect the "earth" (environment)? Really? What's "plan B"?

Now see, there you go again. I was attempting to discuss what I consider to be an important issue and you intentionally try to stop the discussion. If you really want to turn this into a cute argument of semantics we can do that, but it is to he detriment of this forum. Regarding your only almost legitimate issue--What are you saying is Plan A? Are you implying that we should go to any length necessary to cut pollution? NO, you are not. Therefore, it is IMPERATIVE that someone decide to what degree we are willing invest our resources into cutting CO2 emissions (or whatever criteria you plan to use). You can stay on topic if you really try. I know you can do it!

Nothing I said was off-topic.

And "Plan A" is to try to avoid making the only earth we have uninhabitable.

But I give you credit from moving beyond "AGW is a hoax". That's real progress.

OK. Thanks for your well thought out and comprehensive reply.

[AFTiger 282]

Ah yes, Richard Lindzen. Perfect example of the downside to tenure. But he's made a nice business of being a denier (which pays much better than acknowledging the actual science.) No surprise that a right wing site like "Daily Caller" would be touting him.

http://www.sourcewat...hard_S._Lindzen

Richard S. Lindzen

Background

His academic research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity.^[5] He has published numerous papers regarding meteorologic and atmospheric topics.^[6]

Fossil Fuel Interests Funding

In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).^[7]

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] 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,' was underwritten byOPEC."^[8]

A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."^[9]

Lindzen's Discarded Global Warming Arguments

An internal document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry^[10].

In a section on the "Role of Water Vapor", the GCC's Science and Technical Advisory Committee wrote that "In 1990, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT argued that the models which were being used to predict greenhouse warming were incorrect because they predicted an increase in water vapor at all levels of the troposphere. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the models predict warming at all levels of the troposphere. However, warming should create convective turbulence, which would lead to more condensation of water vapor (i.e. more rain) and both drying and cooling of the troposphere above 5 km. This negative feedback would act as, a "thermostat" keeping temperatures from rising significantly."

However, the GCC's science advisers noted that this argument had been disproven to the point that Lindzen himself had ceased to use it. "Lindzen's 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions at.the surface would lead to cooler, drier conditions at the top ofthe troposphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to find the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted. More recent publications have indicated the possibility that Lindzen's hypothesis may be correct, but the evidence is still weak. While Lindzen remains a critic of climate modeling efforts, his latest publications do not include the convective turbulence argument."^[11]

In conclusion the GCC's science advisers was that "Lindzen's hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."^[12]

Linzden's Betting Challenge on Global Warming

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."^[13]

On Tobacco

In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."^[14]James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the date relating smoking to helath problems, which was closely analagous to his views of climate data." ^[15]

Key Quotes by Lindzen

• "I think it's [concern about global warming] mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves." ^[16]
  

• Lindzen told the BBC that ExxonMobil was "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US" and that "they have a CEO who is not going to be bamboozled by nonsense."^[17]
  

• "To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science."^[18]
  

• On the term climate skeptic "Let me explain why I dont like it. You know to be skeptical assumes there is a strong presumptive case, but you have your doubts. I think were dealing with a situation where there's not a strong presumptive case."^[19]
  

• "There is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons." Lindzen speaking at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009).^[20]
  

Affiliations

Lindzen was a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center^[1], a Maryland-based think tank which had been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil^[21], but does not appear to have filed a tax return with the IRS since 2007. ^[1]

He is also on the Academic Advisory Council of the U.K.-based Global Warming Policy Foundation.^[22]

Actions

Signatory to Letters Opposing Action on Global Warming

• Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change ^[23][24]
  
• "Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations", December 13, 2007.^[25]
  

Speaker at events disputing climate change

Lindzen has been a keynote speaker at media events and conferences of a range of think tanks disputing climate change including the Heartland Institute^[26]and the Cooler Heads Coalition.^[27][28][29]

Also see:

http://www.skeptical...ard_Lindzen.htm

http://www.skeptical...ard_Lindzen.htm

You have just presented proof that this is a political discussion and not a scientific one. It goes both ways. For example, your precious Michael Mann

Michael Mann, climate charlatan

Posted By Paul H. Jossey On 11:21 PM 08/05/2013 In Opinion | No Comments

Climatologist and former University of Virginia researcher Dr. Michael Mann has returned to Virginia, and he has a message for the commonwealth’s residents: vote for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, he just looovess science. And Mann should know, after all he’s a scientist!

Whatever Mr. McAuliffe’s love for the pursuit of discovery that lies at the foundation of scientific exploration, Dr. Mann may not be the best authority. His partisanship, indignation toward critics, and apparent refusal to alter his hypothesis despite contrary evidence hardly speaks to high-minded scientific ideals.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge through logic, reason, and experimentation. We derive knowledge from testing and retesting falsifiable hypotheses. When new evidence proves, disproves, or casts serious doubt on a theory, science mandates the flexibility to adapt to changed circumstances.

But Dr. Mann leads a cabal of scientists who refuse to accept these basic premises. They defend old theories and promote accompanying policy prescriptions with a strident rigidity and dogmatism that would make the most fundamentalist religious zealot blush.

Heretofore, facts have proven Dr. Mann and his cohorts wrong. The earth’s temperature has remained mostly flat for a decade and a half despite the addition of over 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the earth’s atmosphere. No one knows precisely why this is, but what is becoming clear is the global ecosystem’s interaction with these gasses is much more complex, less sensitive, and less understood than anyone — particularly climate scientists — previously thought. In fact, should the current temperature “pause” persist for a few more years it will completely discredit the models consistently touted by “consensus” scientists.

For true scientists this is not a big deal. New, contrary, evidence simply means returning to the drawing board. Indeed climate scientists are already rethinking the effect of clouds and oceans and everything in between on global temperatures.

But the situation is more delicate for those who gained their notoriety, made their reputations, and received their government funding on the old “sky is falling” model. For them acknowledging new facts means admitting the major possibility they were wrong. This includes conceding policy prescriptions based on their work may be draconian, counterproductive, and in the end vastly harmful to poorest of the world’s population. The ethanol disaster is but one example of “consensus” science taking food off the table for no discernible reason. These admissions would be a tough pill to swallow but ones a true scientist would embrace.

Mann first rose to prominence in the late 1990s with publication of his “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show a spike in world temperatures due to anthropogenic global warming. He reached the pinnacle of his profession when the United Nations featured his graph in its 2001 climate report.

Mann vigorously defends his graph despite its questionable methodologies and numerous scholarly criticisms. His favorite tack is to describe his detractors as handmaidens of “fossil fuel interests.” His prickliness even extended to a book he authored last year. In it he spared no one who dared question him, and whose title The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines projects more Saul Alinsky than Louis Pasteur.

He has particular animosity toward Ken Cuccinelli, who as Virginia’s Attorney General had the temerity to seek documents associated with Mann’s time at the University of Virginia after the “Climategate” scandal. The unauthorized release of those presumed-private communications showed Dr. Mann engaged in questionable dialogue with colleagues, including at the CRU, where he denigrated those he deemed insufficiently committed to the “cause.”

Indeed, Mr. Cuccinelli’s gubernatorial candidacy is what brings Dr. Mann back to the commonwealth. He has appeared with Mr. McAuliffe and delighted partisans with bromides against the Republican nominee’s supposed antipathy to science.

And of course, this is all fine. Dr. Mann has every right under the First Amendment to be an apparatchik for the McAuliffe campaign. But it is not his right to shield his partisanship under the guise of his authority as a scientist. Particularly in light of his own conduct that habitually fails to live up to those ideals.

Paul H. Jossey is a lawyer living in Alexandria, Virginia. His interests include First Amendment law and environmental policy. Follow him on Twitter.

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/05/michael-mann-climate-charlatan/

[homersapien 11,374]

My "precious Michael Mann"? Where did that come from"

I never mentioned him. In fact, I don't even know who he is.

I thought we were discussion Richard Lindzen, whom you brought up as an example of a credible denier that proves AGW is being seriously and/or effectively rebutted in the Scientific Community.

Are we changing the subject?

[homersapien 11,374]

You have just presented proof that this is a political discussion and not a scientific one.

And what do you mean by this anyway.

The discussion of whether or not AGW is a valid theory is not political, it is scientific. Scientifc theories can be proven false only through scientific means, by definition.

The only reason politics enter into the discussion is because the people who are against any action to mitigate AGW, is because they are trying to make it political. There is a clear scientific consensus on it's validity. They are trying to make a case it is a hoax or at least the consensus is not there.

Now it's perfectly fine to point out the consensus is not unanimous, and you can also trot out qualified scientists who point out problems or deficiencies with the theory. But in that case, you need to focus on their scientific arguments rather than position or opinion statements.

The former are subject to scientific review (only) to test. But the latter are subject to examining the motivations of the person asserting them (such as being a paid hack for the industries fighting action.)

So there are most certainly politics involved in the discussion, but the essential argument is nonetheless scientific. What we do about the science becomes political. And it's political because people who oppose action cannot make a scientific case for inaction so they simply attack the science that says the problem exists.

Is that too nuanced to be clear?

[homersapien 11,374]

Michael Mann, climate charlatan

Posted By Paul H. Jossey On 11:21 PM 08/05/2013 In Opinion | No Comments

Climatologist and former University of Virginia researcher Dr. Michael Mann has returned to Virginia, and he has a message for the commonwealth’s residents: vote for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, he just looovess science. And Mann should know, after all he’s a scientist!

Whatever Mr. McAuliffe’s love for the pursuit of discovery that lies at the foundation of scientific exploration, Dr. Mann may not be the best authority. His partisanship, indignation toward critics, and apparent refusal to alter his hypothesis despite contrary evidence hardly speaks to high-minded scientific ideals.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge through logic, reason, and experimentation. We derive knowledge from testing and retesting falsifiable hypotheses. When new evidence proves, disproves, or casts serious doubt on a theory, science mandates the flexibility to adapt to changed circumstances.

But Dr. Mann leads a cabal of scientists who refuse to accept these basic premises. They defend old theories and promote accompanying policy prescriptions with a strident rigidity and dogmatism that would make the most fundamentalist religious zealot blush.

Heretofore, facts have proven Dr. Mann and his cohorts wrong. The earth’s temperature has remained mostly flat for a decade and a half despite the addition of over 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the earth’s atmosphere. No one knows precisely why this is, but what is becoming clear is the global ecosystem’s interaction with these gasses is much more complex, less sensitive, and less understood than anyone — particularly climate scientists — previously thought. In fact, should the current temperature “pause” persist for a few more years it will completely discredit the models consistently touted by “consensus” scientists.

For true scientists this is not a big deal. New, contrary, evidence simply means returning to the drawing board. Indeed climate scientists are already rethinking the effect of clouds and oceans and everything in between on global temperatures.

But the situation is more delicate for those who gained their notoriety, made their reputations, and received their government funding on the old “sky is falling” model. For them acknowledging new facts means admitting the major possibility they were wrong. This includes conceding policy prescriptions based on their work may be draconian, counterproductive, and in the end vastly harmful to poorest of the world’s population. The ethanol disaster is but one example of “consensus” science taking food off the table for no discernible reason. These admissions would be a tough pill to swallow but ones a true scientist would embrace.

Mann first rose to prominence in the late 1990s with publication of his “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show a spike in world temperatures due to anthropogenic global warming. He reached the pinnacle of his profession when the United Nations featured his graph in its 2001 climate report.

Mann vigorously defends his graph despite its questionable methodologies and numerous scholarly criticisms. His favorite tack is to describe his detractors as handmaidens of “fossil fuel interests.” His prickliness even extended to a book he authored last year. In it he spared no one who dared question him, and whose title The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines projects more Saul Alinsky than Louis Pasteur.

He has particular animosity toward Ken Cuccinelli, who as Virginia’s Attorney General had the temerity to seek documents associated with Mann’s time at the University of Virginia after the “Climategate” scandal. The unauthorized release of those presumed-private communications showed Dr. Mann engaged in questionable dialogue with colleagues, including at the CRU, where he denigrated those he deemed insufficiently committed to the “cause.”

Indeed, Mr. Cuccinelli’s gubernatorial candidacy is what brings Dr. Mann back to the commonwealth. He has appeared with Mr. McAuliffe and delighted partisans with bromides against the Republican nominee’s supposed antipathy to science.

And of course, this is all fine. Dr. Mann has every right under the First Amendment to be an apparatchik for the McAuliffe campaign. But it is not his right to shield his partisanship under the guise of his authority as a scientist. Particularly in light of his own conduct that habitually fails to live up to those ideals.

Paul H. Jossey is a lawyer living in Alexandria, Virginia. His interests include First Amendment law and environmental policy. Follow him on Twitter.

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.c...mate-charlatan/

But, if you want to make an issue of Mann we can do so:

I marked the only scientific claims I could find in the above article (in red), which are the only points that can be used to falsify AGW theory.

If you like, we can parse those individually to see if there is anything there. (Although the first one has already been addressed.)

The second point is a simple attack on Mann's data, which we can also parse. I don't mind since I haven't personally looked into the "hockey stick" controversy)

Otherwise, everything else in the article is essentially political (opinion) by either side, which is subject to a whole different set of rules, including motivation and agendas.

Does the above make any sense to you or am I just chasing my tail?

[homersapien 11,374]

I don't see anyone saying that we should not be good stewards of the earth. The question is, to what lengths should we go to protect the earth. Should we ban everything that results in CO2 emissions? What about breathing? Clearly there are limits to what is reasonable to do to protect the environment without destroying humanity and the economy and our cultures. Have scientists determined the "proper" amount of man-made CO2 emissions? Has the government determined the proper dollar amount for exceeding that "proper" amount? Clearly these answers are "no." It is my personal belief that AGW is more political than scientific, but I still think that we need to be trying to figure out the risk/benefit of reducing "pollution."

AGW is not a political issue, it is a scientific one. How we respond is political.

That stuff before that was specious. "To what lengths should we go to protect the "earth" (environment)? Really? What's "plan B"?

Now see, there you go again. I was attempting to discuss what I consider to be an important issue and you intentionally try to stop the discussion. If you really want to turn this into a cute argument of semantics we can do that, but it is to he detriment of this forum. Regarding your only almost legitimate issue--What are you saying is Plan A? Are you implying that we should go to any length necessary to cut pollution? NO, you are not. Therefore, it is IMPERATIVE that someone decide to what degree we are willing invest our resources into cutting CO2 emissions (or whatever criteria you plan to use). You can stay on topic if you really try. I know you can do it!

Nothing I said was off-topic.

And "Plan A" is to try to avoid making the only earth we have uninhabitable.

But I give you credit from moving beyond "AGW is a hoax". That's real progress.

OK. Thanks for your well thought out and comprehensive reply.

Are you asking for more? If so, pick a point and I will respond to it.

[AUcivE09 582]

Wow - homer has completely trashed this thread. He sees fit enough to tell you he thinks your wrong with nothing of his own to contribute. Homer - I know you think highly of your opinion and not much of anyone elses - but you are starting to sound a bit crazy around here. Bring something to the table buddy - or actually try listening to someone who has taken an interest in the environment and works with it daily. Man made GW from CO2 is nothing more than a theory with shaky indicators at best. Do you have anything besides "scienceblog" that you draw from?

[homersapien 11,374]

Wow - homer has completely trashed this thread. He sees fit enough to tell you he thinks your wrong with nothing of his own to contribute. Homer - I know you think highly of your opinion and not much of anyone elses - but you are starting to sound a bit crazy around here. Bring something to the table buddy - or actually try listening to someone who has taken an interest in the environment and works with it daily. Man made GW from CO2 is nothing more than a theory with shaky indicators at best. Do you have anything besides "scienceblog" that you draw from?

Is there a substantive rebuttal in there? I couldn't find one. So I don't know how to reply.

If there's one in there, how about highlighting it in red (or something)?

[AUcivE09 582]

I dont have to highlight or use some smiley. The point I was making is that GW is a theory, far from fact. The best theories out there trying to prove this have holes shot all thorugh them. It is not on those of us who doubt GW to prove it doesnt exist, but rather those who want it to be true. The other point I was making is that you ALWAYS have something to say, but in the previous 2 or 3 pages I see nothing but banter. There is no rebuttal above because there is nothing to refute.

[homersapien 11,374]

I dont have to highlight or use some smiley. The point I was making is that GW is a theory, far from fact. The best theories out there trying to prove this have holes shot all thorugh them. It is not on those of us who doubt GW to prove it doesnt exist, but rather those who want it to be true. The other point I was making is that you ALWAYS have something to say, but in the previous 2 or 3 pages I see nothing but banter. There is no rebuttal above because there is nothing to refute.

You do understand the scientific term for theory don't you? The word itself doesn't imply that it isn't established as true - or "fact" in by the scientific community. It is a theory that is backed up by enough cross-discipline evidence to convince something like 97% of the scientists who are qualified to understand the total picture.

And please explain your problem with "science blog". I use them because it well organized, well-written and everything is backed-up with references. If you have a problem with anything they say, trot it out and we'll explore it. (BTW, that's what's known as a "substantive argument").

Scientists Aren’t Even Sure

Objection:

Even the scientists don’t know that the climate is changing more than normal and if its our fault or not. If you read what they write it is full of “probably”, “likely”, “evidence of” and all kinds of qualifiers. If they don’t know for sure, why should we worry yet?

Answer:

Unfortunately, “likely”, “evidence suggests” and “probability” is the language of science. There is no proof, there are no absolute certainties. Scientists are always aware that new data may overturn old theories and that human knowledge is constantly evolving. Consequently, it is viewed as unjustifiable hubris to ever claim one’s findings as unassailable. But in general, the older and more established a given theory becomes, the less and less likely it is that any new findings will drastically change things. Even the huge revolution in Physics brought on by Einstein’s theory of relativity did not render Newton’s theories of Classical Mechanics useless. Classical Mechanics is still used all the time because is is quite simply good enough for most purposes..

But how well established is the Greenhouse Effect?

Greenhouse Effect theory is over 100 years old. Even the first predictions of Anthropogenic Global Warming came in 1896. Time has only strengthened and refined those ground breaking conclusions. We now have decades of very detailed and sophisticated climate observations and super computers crunching numbers in one second it would have taken 1 million 19th century scientists years with a slide rule to match. Even so, you will never ever get a purely scientific source saying “the future is certain”.

But what certainty there is about the basic issue is close enough to 100% for all practical purposes that it should be taken as 100%. Don’t wait any longer for scientific certainty, because we are there. Every major institute that deals with climate related science is saying AGW is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the “very likely” and “strongly indicated” qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.

The rest of the issue, how high will the temperature go, how fast will it get there and how bad will this be, is much less certain. But no rational human being rushes headlong into an unknown when there is even a 10% chance of death or serious injury, why should we demand 100% certainty before avoiding this danger? Science has given the human race the dire warning with all the urgency and certainty we should need to prompt action.

We don’t have time or reason to wait any longer.

http://scienceblogs....rent-even-sure/