MIT Climatologist Richard Lindzen on the Politics of Global Warming

[lovelplants]

oh ok i respect.

[getgene]

I like the cherry Kool Aid.

I wonder what reports you read? They have big words in them.

The IPCC perhaps? Here is Dr. Lindzen's 2001 rejection of the consensus report of the non-scientists (they used HIM as one of the consensus! He didn't care for that): eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/T­estimony/Senate2001

[donttellmethetime]

So frustrating that the only outlet for this accomplished and honest scientist is a conserative organization. There are many on the left who oppose the "official concensus" of Anthropogenic Global Warming. The Free Market, something that the Heartland Institute promotes, is the cause of the global warming myth. Nuclear Reactors, high priced oil and multi billion dollar derivative energy trading schemes are very lucartive and keep the wheels Capitalism moving.

[JarradIRONEAGLE]

What? Where's the data? This is not science, it's a conspiracy theory! NASA GIS data demonstrates his hypothesis is not founded on any evidence, but conjecture. Where's the scientific method?

[SirTorment]

Where is the default '13 people like Al Gore' comment?

P.S God bless Richard Lindzen

[willwalkkent]

The speech is cut out at 6.36 ish. I would have liked to hear what the crucial thing is that scientist need to understand, but most of the argument seems to be cut out.

[TheKickerboy99]

National Geographic has lost all of my respect

[joe80dman]

Aw, c'mon folks. Never mind that temperatures are plummeting yearly. We must have a viable reason to foist global government onto the masses. What better way than to use a concept as global warming? Pay no attention to the Carbon Credit scam, that's not up for public debate. The authorities should be given the respect they so well deserve. We all should just agree with their agenda, and never ask questions.

[justanothersheeple]

please google "donald easterbrook truth lies & common sense pacific decadal oscillation"

[thesparitan]

lindzens bigs ideas

Iris hypothesis:This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. Satellite data from CERES has led researchers investigating Lindzen's theory to conclude that the Iris effect would instead warm the atmosphere

ohh sorry big guy geuss you were wrong there, dam try next time before we are all dead.

[dinkolino2]

would, but it obviously doesnt.

[thesparitan]

% of the actively publishing climate scientists (as opposed to the scientists who are not publishing actively) agree that human activity, such as flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, is a significant contributing factor to global climate change

yep he refutted all of those scientist. umm seems a little strange everyone got it wrong and he got it right. just saying its strange

[ulyhappy]

Because they are funded on proposals in favor of AGW. If the journal or publishing body has a particular stance, the papers are refused.

If you're not in scientific research you won't understand. Grants, proposals, papers and impact factors rule your life. Areas other than climate science see researchers lie in order to publish papers in reputable journals. This is no different and how it works.

[thesparitan]

he is the only credible scientist these deniers have on there side, that i know of. i would like to know who else they have that i wont laugh at.

[aARIESsSs]

the sun, laugh at the sun, you know that giant ball of nuclear fusion in the sky that is responsible for heating the entire solar system.

[JohananRaatz]

@thesparitan By deniers are you referring to Climategate deniers?

[thesparitan]

@JohananRaatz Climategate, WOW. you mean the thousands of private emails between scientist and just a few showing that they get mad and say stupid things. So a few emails disprove all of the data and the fact of AGW. Really.

I dont care if they said they made it all up, the evidence shows that AGW exists. Only when you show another cause for the warming, because the warming is undisputed, will I or any honest person stop believing in AGW.

[JohananRaatz]

@thesparitan Yes the warming of 15 years ago is undisputed. That however as frozen in and maintained itself over the last 15 years -meaning that there has been no subsequent warming. The emails showed that the scientists (who probably wanted more grant money) were in a dither about this and wondering how to fix the data (hide the decline) so as to cover this up.

[thesparitan]

@JohananRaatz I want to see those emails?

[JohananRaatz]

@thesparitan

Youtube will not let me post links, google "climategate emails" the first several links that show up should be sufficient.

[TheKickerboy99]

@thesparitan OK, well where do we get heat from? The sun, right. Cloud cover being the largest greenhouse gas right. OK now with that knowledge go search Henrick Svensmark, and watch his peer reviewed theory on our planets cycles in temperature.

[Stumper1939]

Lindzen is the same person who testified before Congress that there is no link between smoking and lung cancer. So much for his credibilty!

[thesparitan]

lol so true

[deusAtheismus]

Oh my, this was released AFTER the CRU-incident.

[MrEryntrenbeathz]

ajemnd bei laune mit mia zu chaten oder am tele oder auch per cam ^^ bin gelangweilt

[markjohnconley]

No they don't silly, he keeps "citting bad data". Also look up "Annapolis Center"!

[Bandticker]

Lindzen focuses on the data and the facts not some bullshit hockey stick created by one of Al Gore's enviro thugs.

[pfriverrat]

and gore thinks we are all hockey pucks.

[tonyg0123]

all these scientists are now coming out saying there is a lot of holes in the AGW. makes me wonder...and now all these people in the IPCC are not credible scientists? who the hell are we suppose to believe?

[pfriverrat]

what you have to do, is hear both sides, then go out and use some reaserch and look at the weather the last few years vs. what they are saying are happening.

[tonyg0123]

i've looked at both sides for the last few years now and im starting to have my disbeliefs. why won't these AGW alarmists ever debate???

[pfriverrat]

If you cook the books long enough, maybe it will lead to global warming.

[kennyeret]

hahaha...nice!!

[justanothersheeple]

@kennyeret he's not gonna kiss ass and lie for grant money, good man

[GreggaryPeccary]

I get how you're feeling. I feel completely screwed over, but the pieces of the puzzle are slowly coming together now. New World Order isn't a conspiracy, these guys are very blatant about this (check out Bilderberger group). And Obama charms the pants off everybody, he could sell anything to the world. I advise you to jump off the bandwagon.

I'd be damned if I'm wrong

[tonyg0123]

thanks, but i'm already one of obama's biggest critics. and yes, i've seen the alex jones videos "obama deception" and "fall of the republuc" I'm sure there is some truth in that.

[Brixer1]

Both vostok and Dome C (the 2 longest timeframe cores I know of) ice cores support the view of CO2 level lagging temperature.

I'm not going to put it in anyones face, look it up yourself.

[oranpf]

To use an analogy even Sununu would understand: a group of engineers is trying to figure out how to make cars that perform better, and instead of helping, this guy is trying to sell them an old clunker: "It's easy, they solved that problem years ago, and here she is -- ain't she a beauty! Mmmm. Smell that carburetor! No money down!"

[oranpf]

The negative feedback mechanisms he loves so much have always been in the models. Sure, the models are not proof of anything, be he is outright lying. Now, some positive feedback effects are discovered and incorporated into the models, and he uses an argument from pure intuition that positive feedback doesn't even exist in nature [i can find hundreds of examples] to discredit the entire model. And he's the one crying "propaganda"?

[EddieJHamilton]

His example of feedback, as gas and brake pedals is not even a decent analogy. I'm open minded on science but I think this guy is not shooting straight. His speech contained more ad hominem attacks than science.

[sdcoyote70]

The analogy was not his but he used it because it was understandable to lay people.  He also used the 'b;lanket' analogy which he sees as over simplified but something people relate to.

His paper in Aug. in Geohysical Research Letters, show that what the IPCC models project as positive feedback [longwave radiation] is in fact shown to be negative feedback [cooling the earth] by the satelite data

[EddieJHamilton]

A good scientist who is not a good communicator should stay in the lab unless he is also going to bone up on how to clearly explain stuff to laypeople. It's one of the things that made Sagan and Feyman famous, they made their brilliance accessible by simple, but accurate, informative analogy.

[oranpf]

On positive feedback, he says, "whether nature actually behaves that way - the answer, I would suggest is unambiguously no". At this point, he loses all credibility -- even/especially with skeptics. There are both positive and negative feedbacks, and even the strongest proponents have always assumed that the negative feedback effects would hold temperature in balance over the long term when the driving forces smooth out.

[citizenschallengeYT]

Ifoolproof

I sure hope you are not referring to Lindzen!

[Ifoolproof]

Finally, someone who is not a puppet!!

This will never maker it into the mainstream media...it is actually newsworthy! ;)

Someone who speaks against the lies.

Very refreshing!!

[citizenschallengeYT]

cbc:

"...The data shows global temperature increasing since the middle ages & CO2 level fluctuations lag temperature fluctuations. "

Please share your authoritative links supporting your bold claims.

sincerely, cc

[citizenschallengeYT]

cbc: "after you sift through the myriad of character assasinations"

BS ~ listen to Lindzen talk & I've done a lot of that lately. He is an active master of "Character Assassination" in a myriad guises ~ plus "Appeals (to his) Authority" dozen of times > a thing he so eloquently condemns.

The man is guilty of every charge he levels at others!

As for your reference to science ~ come off it with the bluff, you haven't spent any time getting to know what's being gathered.

[lmankj]

Good one

[citizenschallengeYT]

Silly guy,

I can tell you never actually examine the evidence.

Educate yourself - first about the hacked EAU emails:

Visit scientificamerican(dot)com and lookup Scientists Respond to "Climategate" E-Mail Controversy 12-4-9

For more general AGW education try noaawatch(dot)gov, or arctic.atmos.uiuc(dot)edu/cryo­sphere.

Only through an act of willful ignorance toward the collected data can anyone claim AGW is a hoak.

Faith based thinking sucks!

[cluebattingcage]

"Only through an act of willful ignorance toward the collected data can anyone claim AGW is a hoak. "

I believe the word you were looking for would be "hoax"?

Only through an act of willful ignorance toward the collected data can one claim that the science is settled. The data shows that the global temperature has been increasing since the middle ages, not just since the industrial revolution, and the data also shows that CO2 level fluctuations lag temperature fluctuations.

[citizenschallengeYT]

The deception starts from the first credits.

This is Lindzen speaking at the "Hearthland Corporate Sponsored Conference on Global Warming Skepticism."

00:45 "to define a few simple truths that OUR SIDE tend to forget.

This is a political speech and has nothing to do with helping clarify aspects of our evolving climate science.

A parade of insults does not an educational talk make !

WHY NEVER TALK ABOUT THE REAL STUFF ??

From there it goes down hill.

Denialism my any other name.

[trepidity23]

You may want to take note that Richard Lindzen did not make that title, and that is really irrelevent. You may want to also take a good hard look at all the data and research and papers he and those who agree with him have been releasing over the past 30 years. Sorry dude, Global Warming is bullshit.

[cluebattingcage]

Lindzen has talked about "the real stuff" plenty if you care to look past what you see on the news.

The vast majority of it would be way over your head.

A bit of Googleage on his name - after you sift through the myriad of character assasinations - would reveal plenty of science for you to immerse yourself in. "The Real Stuff" is there.

[Skyler827]

Al Gore is not a scientist.  He does not debate because he is not an expert. He only learns from experts he trusts and tries to tell the world that he believes the world is in troble. He does not debate because he is not a qualified scientist, but a politician. He doesn't avoid debating GW out of fear of being proven wrong. He avoids debating it because its not his theory, and he didn't collect the data that constructs its models.

[Skyler827]

Can someone clear this up for me? I was linked to this video that allegedly contains evidence against global warming. I watched the video twice and I guess I missed it. Am I missing something? Does it present evidence against global warming?

[rkcannon]

Basically the scientists pushing AGW are not experts in the field and have other motives- money etc.; The computer models are not accurate and assume a positive feedback to increased temps, causing more greenhouse effect, and this is wrong- it's reduced.  I believe the expert over thousands of scientists looking for research money that have little knowledge of climatology. There are so many cases of junk science to get research money- ex HIV not proved to cause AIDS, Cholesterol and heart etc

[Skyler827]

from what I've been told, your claim is dubious. But if you're right, then I've been misled.

So now I am faced with the question of who am I to believe, because I'm not a scientist, and neither is anyone telling me this. To solve this personal dilemma, I am going to the source of the most unbiased, scientifically verified source of information I have on the issue: My own political party. I am a republican, and therefore you MUST be right. no question about it, right?

[Reasonjester]

Dr. Linzen is being charitable here. In a recent paper he demolishes the hypothesis that increasing levels of CO2 lead to decreasing ambient heat leaving the earth's atmosphere. The propagators of the man-driven climate change myth are delusional and/or nefarious neomarxist types. End of story.

[BeondaPale]

Bull - A general debunking of Lindzens strawman arguments, red-herrings and out and out errors can easily be found on RealClimate

By "The propagators of the man-driven climate change myth" you can only mean the vast majority of climate scientists other than the very lonely Dr Linzen.

OJ Simpson was CLEARLY guilty, but even in the OJ Case, "experts" were hired to testify on OJ's innocence.

[sirdelrio]

@Reasonjester congratulations, you've been oficially brainwashed into thinking marxism is the source of evil in the world. And i'm not a marxist, by the way.

[donttellmethetime]

@Reasonjester

Reasonjester, it's the free-market that s in control of the Climate Myth. Ask yourself Cui Bono? It' is ironic especiall coming from a conservvative "free market" coalition like The Heartland Institute.

You are confusing Stalinism and centralized Beurocracy with Marxism by the way.

[AceofDlamonds]

@Reasonjester

Every major national/international scientific community is delusional? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me......and it's BS. Climate change is accepted as well as evolution....read a journal for once......Linzen is a very bright man, but his assessment is flawed....check it out. Lindzen also claims there is no "consensus", when there is a very clear one. The National Academy of Sciences, of which he is a part of, included. ppl bet him money if global temps would drop or rise.

[eurogoldexchange]

Completely wrong.

[84AMK]

A lot of scientists from russia and danish scientists have been researching much of the sun to find its effects on climate.

I dont think other countries arent as gung ho for global warming...

[84AMK]

You know why i dont like his videos, he uses the Great Global Warming Swindle as a means to debunk anything deniers are trying to prove. That movie, along with the inconvient truth are sources that NOBODY should use....

[84AMK]

OK. Off topic here, the news makes people panic. The news sucks, and always has! It freaks people out and overhypes everything.

Need proof? The swine flu!!!

NOTHING happened!!!

[furyofbongos]

Oh, no wonder this guy talks in a manner that puts me to sleep, he has job security enforce by the gun of government.

[kit954]

Why then should we believe this one dude claiming that he's one of the few real scientists while his endorsements largely come from the energy industry anyway.

[fraxus]

kit954 - science is not democratic. It doesn't matter a bit of 99.997% of all scientists agree. What matters is the evidence. The alarmists are making unsupportable extrapolations.

[bettertobealive]

Indeed, it's not a numbers game given credence by polls and surveys.

[BeondaPale]

If you went to 1000 doctors and all but 2 (WAY less then the 99.997% you site here) said you had to lose weight or you would have a heart attack, would you:

A. Try to lose weight

Or

B. Head immediately to your local Denny's for a $3.99 Grand Slam Breakfast?

If you answer with anything other than (A), chances are 99.997% certain that you are: A) a moron or B) have a death wish.

Now, you can choose (B) if you wish - just don't expect ME to follow you to Stupid Land

[bettertobealive]

Ever heard of Galileo?

Nobody cares about your consensus.

[BeondaPale]

What?? There was no scientific consensus against Galileo. The objection to Galileo was religious (purely UN-scientific)

So you've got it exactly backwards.

Galileo was up against the consensus IN THE CHURCH, not fellow scientists.

Fellow scientists (even if they did not let it be known because of fear of condemnation from the church) would have heartily AGREED with Galileo and there would have been SCIENTIFIC consensus again.

Bad argument - try again

[kit954]

Also his comment about the science being ignored in favor of general consensus and authority fails to address the fact that it took over a decade for the overwhelming number of climate scientists who came to the same conclusions about the anthropogenic causes of global warming to be heard and a revolution in public thought to develop and overwhelm the nay-saying majority and authority, politicians, etc. to begin with.

[kit954]

Wow I am amazed at how many people believe this guy because its what they want to believe, how he has the audacity to generalize how "nature" operates and btw I've never heard anyone "endorse" global warming before but would love to see the ad!

[St37One]

You have not seen the PSA's?

The alarmist buzz?

Really?

[jhg3]

Try not to get so personal. I never attacked you. I initially got interested in this topic after listenening to Al Gore's incon. truth. At the time I saw tons of holes in his arguments. The first was the 300,000 year graph he stands infront of. It shows huge temp. swings before homo sapiens amounted to anything. 6 ice ages 6 warming periods. Why did they happen? Could, could this warming period like the others. No one has been able to answer this question.

[84AMK]

you are right. many people have not done their research, but simply just picked a side. I used to think it was caused by CO2, until I starting reading about the sun and its effect on weather. Im not a scientist, but common sense and doing your homework sure helps!! Strangely enough, there are scientists that are skeptics. This scientific debate is probably the largest ever...

[jhg3]

What worsening environmental conditions? 1970 the Charles river in Boston was a cesspool as were most rivers in the industrial states. Now many of these rivers have fish. The developing world needs help but the west can lead the way. Most industrial cities have greatly improved air quality. Do your research.

[BeondaPale]

uh huh, so care to guess where all that industry has moved SINCE 1970???

China, India, developing world ring a bell??

Most industrial cities WHERE?? The US?

You clown are hilarious

[JoeAverage86]

Global warming is a joke. Remember all these "scientists" in '93 & '94 saying if we didn't change our policies ASAP by 2004 the world would cease to exist?

Record ice in the artic circle doesn't get reported. John Coleman's lawsuit against Al Gore for fraud doesn't get any pub....its all a scam.

[BeondaPale]

"Remember all these "scientists" in '93 & '94 saying if we didn't change our policies ASAP by 2004 the world would cease to exist?"

No, I don't remember them. Can you name a scientist who in '93 and/or '94 said that if we didn't change our policies ASAP by 2004 the world would cease to exist?

[jhg3]

I do remember the scare in the '70's about the coming ice age. "Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. ....Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round."

[BeondaPale]

#1 Please name on, JUST ONE scientists ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE that said "The world will cease to exist by 2004"

FACT: You CAN'T because NO scientist has EVER said this and you are therefore a LIAR

#2 In what court has John Coleman's lawsuit against Al Gore for fraud been filed and what is it's status?

FACT: Anyone could file a law suit againsts anyone, it doesn't mean didly unless it's acted upon. Coleman's lawsuit is not being acted upon. Why? It's PURE BS.

[JonThm]

The wordl started cooling in 2005. Go outside more!

[RunescapeMechscape]

im not going outside. im not intending to have a higher risk at getting skin cancer >.>

[JonThm]

There is a human antibiotic to skin cancer. I tell you how to make it on this blog. Travel, see around the world. Die later. LIve now.

[NBG2004]

Notice that most who endorse the anthropogenic, global warming argument are liberal scientists and politicians. I welcome an honest, evidence based debate on this issue between proponents and opponents of this theory instead of the political propaganda preached by the socialist, environmental, political activists. Fear is an ancient tool of tyrants and oligarchs to usurp power and wealth. Before fearing a debateable matter, do your own homework! Look at the evidence for yourself!

[BeondaPale]

"liberal scientists"?

Like who? And please include what makes him or her liberal

[Skyler827]

I am an adamant capitalist, a non-scientist, I almost always vote republican and a devout christian. However, I am a proponent of the idea of global warming. I am not a proponent of cap-and-tax or any government means to solve the problem either.

[tardbuster007]

watch Lord Monckton's presentation on the issue

[JTinSC]

What exactly is a "proponent of the idea of global warming"? You are in favor of Global Warming?

[Skyler827]

I mean I think that its real and that something has to be done about it. That's all. ^yeah and I sometimes have a way with long words and phrases. But my point is that just because a government solution would be a disaster does not mean that we should ignore the environmental damage that we are doing. We should take our own initiative.

[dagrimreefah]

This guy is a whitewasher. All he's doing is trying to get people to veer from the point that human-caused global warming is pseudoscience, which it is.

[Ralph64]

Uhh... You do know that Dr. Lindzen is *opposed* to Global Warming alarmism, right?

[dagrimreefah]

Uhh, seeing as how you have to put quotations around "opposed" means this argument is already over.

[Ralph64]

Those are not quotation marks, they are asterisks.

Sorry, bad habit I started to provide emphasis in plain text messages.

[St37One]

Doing science is one thing, but you cant disagree with the Climate Change Consensus Panel (CCCP) because that might damage the fragile social fabric woven out of solidarity and commitment to a better world.

Individual thoughts are nothing without the sacred intellectual climate.

There are also well funded junk science industries for other political lobby groups like Violence Against Women, and Intelligent Design.

Anything called a "panel" and associated with the UN is BAD NEWS!!!

[Skyler827]

First of all, its the IPCC. 2nd, its not out of social cohesion and solidarity that climate change is acknowledged in the scientific community. The GOAL of science is to upset the status quo: discover the wheel, discover the atom, discover quantum mechanics, and so on. The goal is to dig up data that messes up our current explanation that can only be explained by a better theory. Social cohesion is what keeps a military force together.

[St37One]

You are arguing against a straw man Skyler827 because you are oblivious to the real point of contention.

It looks to me that we disagree on whether or not climate science has been hijacked by a political movement. Not about how science should work, or what the goal should be.

Do NOT continue assume that what is being packaged and presented to you as scientific knowledge, is infact scientific knowledge.

[cluebattingcage]

Did you know Lindzen was once on the IPCC? He left when he saw the mockery it made of science.

The GOAL of science is not to "upset" anything. The Goal of science is to discover and understand truths about the nature of the physical universe.

The "goal" of leftists is to upset the status quo. That is what "Change" is all about.

I read "Rules for Radicals". It explained much about leftist politics and practices.

Not much of it flattering.

[IslandSpiceDreamin]

It's funny how that satellite we sent up on Feb. 24th to measure "global warming" just happened to blow apart mid-flight - and went ker-plunk into the ocean near Antarctica (how apprapro). Funny AND costly. And I had to laugh at the huge global warming protest in DC on March 3rd...protesters clad in their intelligentsia (dunce?) caps--mittens, scarves, parkas & boots--in the middle of a BLIZZARD :) The irony's just too rich.

[IslandSpiceDreamin]

Then there was that big mistake our esteemed "climate watchers" discovered they'd made about a month ago-when they "found" a chunk of Arctic ice they thought had melted. It just happened to be the size of the state of California! They must have conveniently "misplaced" that silly little ice cube. ( Al Bore probably reverted to thumb sucking - either that, or he puckered up & blew some more hot air toward the polar caps )

[soccom8341576]

Follow the science and the idea of nature. Not political movements or unbased hypothesis or propaganda. Nature will prove these all wrong.

Science must not be corrupted.

[plasterdbastard]

AMEN!

[JasonRadley]

Any guy with a beard has a weak face.

[jazman1960]

I thought he was clear in saying that the models being used to prove global warming we not based on sience, but rather on outcome based sience. In other words they made the model to show the outcome they wanted. If you run the current models in reverse they do no match the climate we have had verses the amount of co2. There is a reason Al Gore will not debate anyone on this issue.

Any one who does not believe in global warming is called names. Lets see real debates on this issue with the facts.

[Fendefadst]

At All my GREENS: As you can see in this video, most of the worlds population is not yet able to think post formal-logic(which would mean metasystemic, cross-paradigmatic), which means that it is only a minority being able to understand the problems of today. Dont get irritated by fools : )

Climate change could cost the world 5 to 20 percent of our wealth till 2100, changing that "only" 1 percent till 2050. That means, the risk already makes it worth to respond. One world.

Peace

[belzondium]

Sounds like you believe in astrology.

[Fendefadst]

Good argumentation

[ronpaul101789]

You know this...how?

[Fendefadst]

reading

[dagrimreefah]

Hahahahaha, to all my "greens"... HAHAHAHAHA! What a fucking fool. "One world"...HAHAHAHA... doesn't make you look like a good person or anything... Just makes you look like an uneducated dumb ass.

[Fendefadst]

Your language: "What a fucking fool."

What does your mother think about you? Does she know what bad words your using on the internet? : )

[dagrimreefah]

Yes. But I don't think she'll mind, seeing as how she lives across town and is probably too lazy to drive over here to whip my ass.

[kruse001]

No matter what the cause of global warming is, there is a surefire correction. Yes it's true, global warming IS happening, that is undeniable. The deserts will slowly migrate toward the equator as the planet warms, and massive rain forests will be whiped out. This is by no means a bad thing, because the heat should be just right in the mid hemispheres for there to be vast rain forests again, and greater species. These huge forrests that form should refresh the atmosphere, we'll have cooling.

[wwwwwwwbigboy]

Excellent

[stopglobalwarming08]

BORING LOL

yaawnnnnn

[StanleyKu]

No more boring than Al Gore.

[bighitter42]

If you weren't happy with this talk, I STRONGLY suggest you look up the Intelligence Square Global Warming Debate, that's available here on YouTube.

You might need to search IQ2, I can't remember.

Michael Crichton had a great talk on here as well.

[Zakdayak]

I have to say, I don't like the editing job on this. Reason Magazine would qualify on here to put on a video of over 15 mins. We needed to hear his whole discussion.

[KladionicaCity]

the announcer looks like the Iran president.

[lambedan]

Another topic I don't hear discussed much is that we are in a colder than average period and that if this planet warms up that would bring it more in line with its historical temperatures.

I don't think we can expect the climate not to change whether we are the cause or not.

The discussion should probably focus on how to survive change, not prevent it which would eventually lead to battling natural processes.

The human branch came from a large climate change so lets not ignore our origins.

[lambedan]

I am really not satisfied with the global warming debate.

I don't really think the extreme alarmists are correct because there has always been certain groups of scientists and people that predict doom and it never happens.

At the same time you can't just write off the large levels of CO2 being released and the fact that the planets climate has changed wildly over its whole history.

Instead of just doubt I want to see predictions. This is starting to remind me of intelligent design tactics.

[bighitter42]

"I want to see predictions" No, you don't. That's 90% of the catastrophist's argument. They can't effectively predict weather in two weeks, nor can they predict climate in ten years. Why am I supposed to believe that their predictions(for events that they don't even predict for at least 200 years,) are any more accurate?

[lambedan]

I was talking about the global warming skeptics predictions. I don't hear about them. I want to hear their predictions and why they think theirs is more accurate.

Perhaps some models would be nice or specific flaws in the models they criticize.

I honestly want to be more informed. Regardless of the conclusion.

I see flaws in both camps so I am not ready to take either at face value.

[bighitter42]

Fair enough, but the same logic applies. We cannot accurately predict anything, which way they decide to spin the data doesn't mean much.

MY PREDICTION? ...That it's no crisis. We will learn more about it. The only concrete thing we have right now is that the earth has warmed 6/10 of a degree in the past 100 years.

The earth has been both way warmer and way colder, and it seems to be doing ok.

[adriccv]

"I see flaws in both camps so I am not ready to take either at face value. "

That's kind of the point. I'm a scientist and a sceptic. The current trend of alarmism is far too shrill and set apart from science to be trustworthy - most of the available facts do not in any sense validate any of the proposed climatic models wherein humans affect climate significantly. But global warming sceptics tend to be raging conservatives, with which I cannot identify either.

Your attitude is just right.

[zthustra]

This video bothered me in that someone who is, I assume, is one of the nation's most respected climatologists, based his entire conversation on assertion, anecdotal comparison, strawman argument and ad hominum attack.

I was really looking forward to an objective, intelligent, fact-rich, scientific argument in opposition to global climate change theory.

I guess if a person is in denial they don't really need much to maintain their disbelief.

[stranger2ooo]

I guess he didn't say what you wanted to hear?

[zthustra]

Actually he didn't say anything.

I didn't have anything in particular that I wanted him to say, I just wanted to hear someone who disagreed with global warming theories tell us why they thought global climate change theory was wrong.

Assertions, anecdotal comparisons, strawman arguments and ad hominum attacks aren't very persuassive.

I guess we are supposed to accept these tactics because he has awsome credentials? I just expected more from him. Maybe something like ... science?

[mejercit]

I would like to ask these global warming alarmists one question.

Why should we not increase the amount of dust in the upper atmosphere to cool the world (TTAPS study)?

[aallppiinnee]

Because in the eyes of the alarmist type, humanity only has the power to do wrong, which is why most of their political agendas revolve around control, not liberty.

[mejercit]

That makes sense.

[TruthDevours]

"Why should we not increase the amount of dust in the upper atmosphere to cool the world (TTAPS study)?"

Global dimming. Something you should look into. Also, check out these podcasts on unwelcomeguestsDOTcom:

#443 False Energy Solutions

John Harte - Global Warming Mechanisms and Prospects for the Future

Let me know if you have anything you'd like to recommend.

[stratvic]

There is not enough political power available to be aggregated and dispersed under that solution.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

one of the best videos I have see. Much respect