Richard Who? AP, NYT, Others Ignore MIT's Lindzen As He 'Pwns' Global Warming Alarmists
As is the case with so much that is being reported in other countries about how much of the rest of the world is walking itself back from the extreme statist agenda supposedly necessitated by "climate change," a presentation at the British House of Commons made by MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, whom James Delingpole at the UK Telegraph describes as "one of the world's greatest atmospheric physicists: perhaps the greatest," has gone virtually unreported in the U.S. establishment press.
There's a reason for this. As Delingpole notes ("Lindzen totally pwns the alarmists"): "... even if you'd come to the talk he gave in the House of Commons this week without prejudice or expectation, I can pretty much guarantee you would have been blown away by his elegant dismissal of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory." Here are excerpts from the PDF supporting Lindzen's appearance, followed by proof that the self-described outlets of record in the America have ignored it (bolds are mine):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓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.
... Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.
... one can see no warming since 1997. As Phil Jones acknowledged, there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years. However, there are uncertainties in the above data, and small adjustments can result in negligible warming or cooling over this period. In the polarized public discourse, this leads each side to claim the other side is lying. However, Jones’ statement remains correct.
... Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.
A search on the professor's last name at the Associated Press's main national site comes up empty. At the New York Times, the most recent item mentioning Lindzen is from a year ago.
As Delingpole notes, Lindzen's presentation caused another journalist to ask if "catastrophic global warming, like Millennium Bug, (is) a mistake." I'd suggest that it's exponentially bigger.
Obviously, the AP and the Times wouldn't want to see that happen here.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
Associate Editor's update at 1:09 AM | Fox News Radio's Alan Colmes told Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.) Monday that he had never heard of Lindzen.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
You can bet the mindless left
Submitted by rbosque on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:32am.
You can bet the mindless left hates him. They hate the truth if it gets in the way of their agenda
Not only do they hate him, they've attacked his integrity
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:29am.
The Gore-istas claim that Prof. Lindzen is a toadie of the oil companies because he once did a study for the Heritage Foundation, which received a small grant from Exxon (That's the institution, not Lindzen's study.)
It's necessary to have a nationally-televised debate with Lindzen vs. the Global Warmers. Let them make their case and challenge each other before the national audience, and let us decide.
Global Warming is food, life, and longevity
Submitted by merly1 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:49am.
World population 1925 = 1 billion
Projected world population 2100 = 10 billion (just increased by 1 billion by UN panel)
If it can be proven somebody has been causing this warming trend of recent millennia, then give that
person a Nobel Prize!
Alarmist Global Warming is dead.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 1:14am.
Alarmist Peak Oil is dead.
Hopefully, alarmist politics will go with it.
Agenda driven Climate Hype...
Submitted by AMR1960 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 3:04am.
The Ecco-Mobsters have co-opted environmental Science. There is/was an unspoken covenant between Lay-people and the practitioners of Science on Society’s behalf. The Scientists dispassionately compiles and distills the data, and Society charts how Humanity integrates that knowledge into the fabric of our lives. Stepping away from the the climate issue, and just looking at the actions & behavior of those the public would normally trust, what I see is the entire issue ENCAPSULATED by Collectivist & Socio-Political agendas, forcing me conclude that powerful elements have sized upon these issues as a way/method to sequester more than just our Carbon.
I frankly don’t trust them…it’s a condition they have brought upon themselves with the series of duplicitous actions regarding how they established their so-called consensus. The “Warmest” community then further aggravates and “poisons the well” by calling us “Flat Earthers” and “Paleo-intellects”. Setting aside their elitist disdain, I have found myself ample evidence that the deconstruction of our carbon based society, along the radical time-table advocated by the likes of: Hansen, Gelick, Mann, Cueller, et al…poses a greater risk of war, famine, and governmental tyranny, than the disruption and risk imposed by having to move 150 yards inland, when lower Manhattan floods in the next 200-300 years…
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/02/28/senator-inhofe-deb...
_____________________
Long Live...THE REPUBLIC !
The temptation is too great
Submitted by c5then on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:13am.
even for purported "scientists" to be immune from it. The temptation of being able to control the actions of the world. The arogance that is the necessary fuel to this temptation is present in all of us. Humility is something that must be practised and cultivated. How many times have we seen scientists or feilds of specialty go off on an extreme ledge where their flawed theories take them with absolute conviction that they are correct, only to have a bit of observed data completely trash their theory and bring them back to earth?
When a theory matches up with their already deeply held personal political ideology it can send people over the edge into extremist advocacy. Match that up with the media who are also under the same political belief system and they will expound on the bits they like and try and hide the bits that they don't.
There is very little that can be considered as "settled science". Even Newton's laws of motion break down in certain circumstances because we do not yet fully understand how the universe works. The rules of geometry as set forth by Euclid also do not work on a large global scale.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Global Warming
Submitted by John21 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 9:17am.
The thing that has always troubled me is the loss of respect and credibility of the scientific community.
Someday something really important and possibly catastrophic is going to be found and because of the current scam artist (Al Gore & friends) and the junk science being used for justification of this fraud, no one will believe until too late.
Even a cursory look at the data being used by the scam artists will prove to anyone that has a functional brain that there is no valid scientific justification for the amounts of money, time and effort that has been dumped on this theory. This began as a discussion of a radical theory in the 60’s but was polarized by the media and political communities that did not understand the discussions.
This fit into the media’s desire to support the environmentalist crusade and the scam artist provide the junk science to them that was false under any real examination but the media and the junk scientist did not want or need the data examined and immediately rushed into the “Science is settled” claim that was obviously false. Every valid “scientific” study used to try and confirm this theory has proven it to be a fraud on the people of the world but the money for the research is too good. The politicians began to get pressure from the environmental groups and the media to commit energy, time and money to investigate (and cure?????) the problem. It is very hard to cure a problem that does not exist. The politicians used this argument as a distraction from the reality of governing a world that with many real problems like poverty and hunger. They used the scam artist data (unexamined or not understood) as an excuse for the existence of these problems, mainly because it is easier to blame some overwhelming idea than to take responsibility to overcome the problem. The IPCC is a joke in the community because they know that the data in their report is false but they see this as a way to gain more power over the world community.
The entire scam is just a power grab by politicians and a wealth grab for the criminals that petal this junk science as real.
Bit of a lengthy read but
Submitted by dbo on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 10:24am.
Bit of a lengthy read but here's a Richard Lindzen classic from a couple of years ago:
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research.
Liberals have co-opted every aspect of society including science
Submitted by frank14 on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:02am.
This global warmist scam led by Al Bore is just a front for imposing socialism. He must laugh at how easily these "scientists" can be bought off.
Lindzen is wonderful!
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 11:10am.
He points out the hypocrisy of whoring science to the highest bidder so commonplace now in academia. It's not just in the physical sciences, but also in the life sciences and all aspects of health care as well. Some of the biggest scandals in clinical and health sciences research have come about just like global warming, that is the conclusion was pre-drawn before the protocol or methodology was even written and submitted.
We use consensus panels in medicine, but they are not treated like great religious works as are climate science consensus pieces. We use them as general guidelines, knowing fully well that larger studies or newer discoveries could render those consensus statements irrelevant at the drop of a hat. We also know that the guidelines do not cover all patients, but instead what we believe to be a majority. We also build them such that there will always be exceptions. It seems in climate science, quite the opposite is true. The consensus is rigid, not to be questioned and has zero flexibility for new evidence and zero tolerance for contradiction. That isn't science--it's congressional politics.
Warmers & Changers
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:00pm.
Believe that "Waterworld" is a documentary. They fanticize they are the no name "Mariner". Future humans will be mutated aquatic sea mamals with gills and webbed digits.
This is what happens to your brain when you ingest the essence of psychoplants.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
The Amazon rain forest should
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:21pm.
The Amazon rain forest should have been completely cut by now. It was not.
Acid rain should have washed away just about everything by now. It has not.
Landfills were supposed to be everywhere by now. They are not.
Renewable resources are the solutions to our problems... except that even through few things are as renewable as trees and water those things are still considered "bad" to use in the eye of an environmentalist.
In fact pumping water from your own well and returning it to the aquafer with a septic system is considered just as wasteful as using city water that may end up put into a river that goes into the ocean.
I also remember in 1984 being told that global cooling was coming.
We've been told that we're running out of oil, yet environmentalists are working overtime to keep that oil we're running out of locked away underground. If we're running out then why would they need to block our access to it? If it's not there then that should be all the reason a greedy oilman would need to not drill!
Years ago Ted Dansen said our oceans would be dead, and even during the gulf oil leak of 2010 we were told it was the end of life as we knew it in the ocean or at least the gulf.
In short, everything I have ever been told by an environmentalist has been a lie and I'm really getting sick and tired of it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
y2k bug vs global warming...
Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 12:52pm.
here is the quick difference. if you forwarded a computer in 1990 to 2000, the PC said 1980, the server said 1900 and the database read as 1900.
Lots of people (excluding Al Gore who took credit for fixing it), including myself, edited code that would check the data, and made the fields work as 2000+ or delayed the problem by making it work as either 1950-2049 (enter 50 and the code assumes 1950.) that is a minor problem compared to what it was.
here is the difference. IT WAS A PROBLEM. and WE COULD DEMONSTRATE IT. AGW.... not the case.
and we solved it. we took responsibility for it and rolled up our sleeves (unless we wore polo shirts) and got the work done.
Thanks ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 4:14pm.
... for that clear explanation and distinction.
It's the sun
Submitted by Ben Blankenship on Wed, 02/29/2012 - 1:32pm.
Global warmists ignore the sun at their peril. How did the earth ever become habitable, after all, had not the sun's warming occurred to permit life here. Will it ever get too hot? I'd guess not. The world has seen several cooling and warming eras. Frankly, I prefer the one we're in.
Food crops thrive and so do humans when it's warm. Welcome the spring, friends, with open arms, not shudders. Be confident that our fate rests not with us, but with a "higher" thing, Old Sol.